Punjab-Haryana High Court
United Ind.Ins.Co. Ltd vs Sewak Ram Etc on 1 December, 2023
FAO-76-1995 2023:PHHC:153157 1
FAO-76-1995
Date of Decision: 01.12.2023
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
VS
Sewak Ram and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.7.
****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J (ORAL)
1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated
10.11.1994 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar
(for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- was awarded as
compensation to respondent No.1, on account of injuries received by him in
a motor vehicular accident and the appellant being the insurer, driver and
owner of the offending vehicle were jointly and severally held liable to make
the payment.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite the fact
that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a fake driving licence
which though was renewed but it does not make it valid, still the appellant-
Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation. In support of
his submissions, he places reliance on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Kamla and others, 2001 ACJ 843. Since, the compensation amount has
already been paid by the appellant to the claimant, therefore, he prays for
grant of recovery rights from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
3. The claimants as also the driver and owner who have been
authenticity of this order/judgment
arrayed in the present appeal as respondent No.1 to 3 were not being served
whereupon publication had been made in The Indian Express dated
08.12.2015, despite which there is no representation on their behalf.
4. This is a reconstructed case, as the original file was burnt in the
fire that broke out in the concerned branch in the year 2011. Since the case is
pending for more than 28 years, the counsel for the parties have no
objection, if the same is decided on the basis of the available record.
5. Heard and perused.
6. It is apt to refer to the findings of the Tribunal as regards the
driving licence is concerned, which read thus:
"18. In support of this issue the United India Insurance
Company-respondent No.3 relied upon the evidence of RW3
Arun Bali licencing clerk Solan, who deposed that a driving
licence, copy of which is Ex.R2, standing in the name of Raj
Kumar son of Ruli Ram was never issued from licencing
authority Solan, from where it is alleged to have been issued.
No doubt, in view of the statement of Arun Bali, RW2 it comes
out that respondent No.1 did not have a valid driving licence
but the respondent No.1 placed on file report of licencing
authority Tohana Ex.R4 according to which the driving licence
of Raj Kumar was renewed on 26.4.1990 and it was valid upto
14.4.1993. The accident in question took place on 21.6.1991.
Respondent No.1 Raj Kumar thus had a validly renewed licence
on the said date. It has been laid down by a Division Bench of
our own High Court in case "National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Sucha Singh and Others" 1994 (1) P.L.R. 140 that
if a licence is renewed though originally it was a fake licence, it
gets its validity. So in view of the observations made by our
own High Court Raj Kumar respondent No.1 can not be said to
be driving the offending truck without holding a valid driving
licence when his licence was duly renewed which afforded
validity to the case. This issue, therefore, goes against
respondent No.3"
7. Bare reading of the aforesaid, makes it is manifestly clear that
concededly, respondent No.2 was not holding a valid driving licence at the
time of accident and therefore, the subsequent renewal of the it would not
validate the same, as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kamla and
others (supra), wherein the judgment of this Court in the case of National
authenticity of this order/judgment
FAO-76-1995 2023:PHHC:153157 3
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sucha Singh and Others 1994 (1)
P.L.R. 140, as relied upon by the Tribunal was overruled and it observed
that, "As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a fake licence
cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on account of some officer
renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. Section 15 of
the Act only empowers any licensing authority to renew a driving licence
issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its
expiry. No licensing authority has the power to renew a fake licence and,
therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake licence as
genuine. Any counterfeit document showing that it contains a purported
order of a statutory authority would ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact
that other persons including some statutory authorities would have acted on
the document unwittingly on the assumption that it is genuine."
8. In view of the above, the appellant is granted the right to
recover the amount paid by it from the driver and owner of the offending
vehicle.
9. The present appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
01.12.2023
Hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
