Jharkhand High Court
Upendra Sah vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 10 February, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 452 of 2015
Upendra Sah, S/o Dhaneshwar Sah, R/o 29- Milla Godown Area,
Burmamines, P.O. & P.S. Burmamines, Town- Jamshedpur, District-
East Singhbhum. .... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1.Oriental Insurance Company Limited, having its divisional office at
Hindustan Building, Main Road, Bistupur, Town- Jamshedpur, District-
Singhbhum East.
2.Chandra Mohan Patro, S/o Late Gangadhar Patro, R/o Jemco, Azad
Basti, Manifit, P.O. & P.S. Telco, Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum
East. .. ... ...Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Appellant (s) : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For the R. No.11 : Mr. G. C. Jha, Advocate
......
11/ 10.02.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. The owner of the vehicle is in appeal against the judgment and award
dated 19.08.2015 passed by learned District Judge-III cum MACT,
Jamshedpur, in Compensation Case No.23 of 2012, in which a finding
has been recorded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not
having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, and
liability has been fixed upon the Respondent No.1- Oriental Insurance
Company to pay the compensation amount and to recover the same
from the owner of the vehicle.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant- owner of the
offending vehicle that the only document to hold that the driver (Vakil
Mahto) was not having a valid driving licence was Exhibit-A, adduced
into evidence by the Opp. Party No.2- Insurance Company. Tribunal
held that the validity period from 24.07.2001 to 23.07.2004, and there
was no further renewal of the driving licence. Ext.5 produced on behalf
of the applicant which was the driving licence of the driver, Vakil Mahto,
was not accepted as it was the photocopy of the certified copy and the
owner had not produced any witness to prove the same.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant- owner of the
offending vehicle that the Driving licence was initially granted to driver
of the offending vehicle, Vakil Mahto from the year 1989 to the year
1992 and thereafter it was being renewed from time to time. The owner
of the vehicle had also appeared before the learned Tribunal and
during enquiry, Ext.5 being the driving licence was adduced into
evidence by the claimant(s) and the same was marked without
objection and it shows the renewal of the same was up to 01.05.2016.
Despite this, it was not accepted and not looked into. Photocopy of the
certified copy of the driving licence has also annexed with the memo
of appeal.
4. It is further argued that even if the breach of insurance policy will arise,
if the vehicle was being driving by a person not having any driving
licence. But, if the driver had a valid licence and was not renewed at
the time of accident, the owner / appellant cannot be held to be liable,
in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex court in the judgment
reported in 2004(3) SCC 297 at Para-110.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1- Insurance Company has
defended the impugned order. It is argued that there is gap in the
period of renewal by three years during which the alleged accident
took place and at the relevant time, the driver had no valid driving
licence. It was for this reason that finding of fact has been recorded by
the learned Tribunal that there was breach of condition of the
insurance policy.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the
sides and on perusal of materials on record, this Court is of the view
that learned Tribunal fell in error by not accepting the photocopy of the
driving licence which was adduced into evidence and marked as
Exhibit, but without objection of the insurance policy. A bare perusal of
the Ext.5, it is evident that the Driving licence was renewed up to the
year 2016 which was initially issued in the year 1989. Further-more the
law is settled that there is initial onus upon the owner of the offending
vehicle to verify that the vehicle is driven by a person having a valid
driving licence. Once that part is proved and even if there is lapse of
period of driving licence, it cannot be said that there is breach of terms
of the insurance policy under Section 149(2) of the M. V. Act (See
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297
para 110).
7. Accordingly, the impugned judgment/ Award is set aside and the
instant Misc. Appeal stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands
disposed of.
Appellant is permitted to withdraw the statutory amount
deposited before the Registry at the time of filing of the instant Misc.
Appeal.
Sandeep/ (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
