Jharkhand High Court
Ram Shankar Singh vs Smt. Sumitra Devi on 13 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No. 176 of 2010
Ram Shankar Singh .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Sumitra Devi
2. Raghwendra Prasad Singh
3. Kumar Ravi Sekhar
4. Pawan Kumar Singh
5. Bishwajeet Singh
6. Ram Ganesh Singh
7. Smt. Janki Devi
8. M/s National Insurance Company Limited, Burdwan
.... .... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mrs. J.K. Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Respondents : M/s Pratyush Kumar & Alok Lal, Advocates
C.A.V. ON 07.01.2022 PRONOUNCED ON 13 / 01 / 2022
1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act by the owner of the vehicle against the award of
compensation in Title (Motor Vehicle) Suit No. 11 of 2008 whereby and
whereunder, the learned Tribunal ordered the compensation amount to be
paid by the appellant/defendant no. 1 in view of breach of condition of in-
surance policy.
2. It is submitted that there was no laches on the part of the owner
of the vehicle as it was having all valid relevant papers and was under the
insurance cover of National Insurance Company Limited respondent
no.8/defendant no. 2. D.W. 1 owner of the vehicle has stated in his deposi-
tion that at the time when the driver was employed his driving license was
verified and the same was found to be valid. In these circumstances if the
driving licence was not renewed in time, lapse was on the part of the driv-
er and not of the owner. It cannot therefore be treated as breach of term
and condition of the insurance policy and cannot be saddled with liability
to pay the compensation amount. Reliance has been placed in Nirmala
Kothari Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2020) 4 SCC 49.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company
that the driver had earlier a valid licence but it was not renewed and on the
date of accident the driver was plying the vehicle without valid and effec-
tive license. Ext.-D has been marked from which it will transpire that his
licence was originally issued on 02.09.1999 and after it was renewed in
2005 when the accident took place the driver was not having the driving
license.
4. It is not in dispute that driving license No. 44446/96 (Ext.-A)
was issued on 25.7.96 by DTO Dhanbad in the name of Ganesh Bouri
who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time of accident. From Exts. C
and D it is manifest that the driving license had not been renewed and was
last valid up to 17.10.2005. Thus when the accident took place the driver
was not having a valid driving licence. The short question that falls for
consideration is whether it can be regarded as a breach of term and condi-
tion of insurance policy?
5. It has been held in 2013 0 Supreme (SC) 784 Pepsu Road
Transport Corporation Versus National Insurance Company that
where the employer had employed the driver in 1994 and in the process of
employment he had been put to a driving test and had been imparted
training also, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the insured is at
fault in having employed a person whose licence has been proved to be
fake by the Insurance Company.
Nirmala Kothari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 49
"9. Having set forth the facts of the present case, the question of law that
arises for consideration is what is the extent of care/diligence expected of
the employer/insured while employing a driver? To answer this question,
we shall advert to the legal position regarding the liability of the insurance
company when the driver of the offending vehicle possessed an
invalid/fake driving licence. In United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Lehru [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, (2003) 3 SCC
338 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 614] a two-Judge Bench of this Court has taken the
view that the insurance company cannot be permitted to avoid its liability
on the ground that the person driving the vehicle at the time of the acci-
dent was not duly licenced. It was further held that the willful breach of
the conditions of the policy should be established."
6. In the instant case the driving licence was duly issued in the
year 1996 long before the accident. The owner has deposed that at the
time of engaging the driver the licence had been duly verified by him
which was valid. In these circumstance, I am of the considered view that
the owner of the vehicle was diligent and had exercised due care in em-
ploying the driver with a valid driving licence. An unconscionable burden
cannot be cast on the owner of the vehicle to personally verify with the
DTO office whether the driving licence was being renewed by the driver
from time to time. There is no evidence on record to establish willful
breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle. Owner of the vehicle can-
not be made liable for the default of the driver on this score. Under the
aforesaid facts and circumstance, I find and hold that non-renewal of driv-
ing licence by the driver did not amount to breach of condition of the in-
surance policy for which he cannot be made liable to pay the compensa-
tion amount. The Judgment and order of the Learned Tribunal to this ex-
tent is set aside. Respondent No. 8 the National Insurance Company shall
be liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. Consequently, I.A. No. 5090 of
2013 stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 13th January, 2022
AFR / AKT
