[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kumar Deceased Through His Lrs And ... vs National Insurance Co Ltd Etc on 15 December, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-5696-2017 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-5696-2017 (O&M)
Reserved on: 14.11.2025
Date of decision: 15.12.2025
Uploaded on: 15.12.2025
RAM KUMAR THROUGH HIS LRS AND ANR.
..Appellants
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND ORS.
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
None for respondents No.2 and 3.
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-owner of the
offending vehicle against the award dated 22.02.2017 passed in a claim
petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali (for short, 'the
Tribunal'), wherein the appellant was fastened with the liability to pay the
compensation of Rs.11,79,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till recovery.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.11.2014, when Sonia along
with her father Om Parkash Singh was going on left hand of the road for her
place of working i.e. Maya Garden, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.
HR-37A-7456 came from Zirakpur side being driven by respondent no.1 in a
1 of 7
FAO-5696-2017 (O&M) -2-
rash and negligent manner, brought his vehicle on extreme left side of the
road in katcha portion and hit against Sonia, who suffered multiple injuries
on her persona and succumbed to the same on the spot. Driver of offending
vehicle alighted from the vehicle, but on seeing the people gathering at the
spot, he slipped from the spot. Sonia was shifted to Civil Hospital, Dera
Bassi, but she was declared dead. It was further pleaded that Sonia was
unmarried, 20 years and 09 months of age. She was employed as computer
operator with Maya Garden, Zirakpur and getting Rs. 15,000/- per month as
salary.
3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents therein appeared
and contested the claim petition by filing separate written statement denying
the factum of accident/compensation.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:-
1. Whether Sonia died in a road side accident caused by
respondent no.1 while driving vehicle no. HR-37A-7456?
OPC
2. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable ? OPR
3. Whether the claimants are entitled to receive
compensation , as prayed for, if so to what extent and
from whom ? OPC
4. Whether respondent no.1 being driver of above said
vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving
licence, route permit at the time of accident ? OPR-3
5. Whether respondent no.2 had committed breach of
terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so, its
effect ? OPR-3.
6. Relief.
2 of 7
FAO-5696-2017 (O&M) -3-
5. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their
respective pleadings.
6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence
on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants.
However, the respondent No.1-Insurance Company was held liable to pay
compensation at first instance and recovery rights were given to respondent
No.1-Insurance Company to recover the same from appellant-owner of the
offending vehicle. Hence, the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the offending
vehicle has gravely erred in giving recovery right to the insurance company
on erroneous premise that the driver of the offending vehicle does not
possess the valid and effective licence at the time of accident. He further
contends that the appellant has placed on record the driving licence of driver
of the offending vehicle and the contents of the driving licence makes it
abundantly clear that on the date of accident, the driving licence was
effective and valid. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed
and respondent No.1-insurance company be held solely liable to pay
compensation to claimant-respondent No.2 and 3.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-insurance company
contends that the learned Tribunal has rightly decided the issue of liability,
therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of the case with their able assistance.
10. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:-
3 of 7
FAO-5696-2017 (O&M) -4-
"Issue No.4
19. Learned respondent nos. 1 and 2 tendered copy
of registration certificate of offending vehicle as Ex.
R-1, copy of driving licence of respondent no.1 as
Ex. R-2 and copy of insurance policy cover as Ex.
R-3. The perusal of driving licence and information
received from information letter dated 19.03.2016
received from Govt. of Nagaland, Office of
Regional Transport Officer, Mokokchung,
Nagaland Ex.R-8 shows that though the driving
licence stood renewed upto 01.04.2015 i.e. it had
not expired on the date of accident i.e. 23.11.2014,
yet, the driving licence held by respondent no.1 is
to be treated as cancelled in view of verification
report of driving licence respondent no. 1 Ex. R-4,
R-5, information obtained under RTI Act from
Regional Transport Officer, Motor Vehicles
Department, Mokukchung, Nagaland Ex. R-6, copy
of notification issued by Government of Nagaland
as Ex. R-7, information letter dated 19.03.2016
received from Govt. of Nagaland Ex. R-8,
verification of licence of respondent no.1 Ex. R-9,
information received from Regional Transport
Officer, Motor Vehicles Department, Mokukchung,
Nagaland Ex.R-13. It is revealed from these
documents that all those driving licences which
have not been digitized into smart card format are
treated as cancelled. The above said information
was obtained under Right to Information Act and as
held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court
in FAO No. 1693 of 2016 ( O & M) titled Pardeep
Kumar Vs Kirna Devi and others, an information
furnished by statutory authority under RTI is in the
nature of public document as per Section 77 of the
4 of 7
FAO-5696-2017 (O&M) -5-
Indian Evidence Act and the document is ought to
be taken without any further proof of what it
contains. It was contended by learned counsel for
respondent no.3 insurance company that since
respondent no.1 was not holding valid driving
licence, so insurance company was not liable and
amount of award, if any, is recoverable directly
from driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
Learned counsel, in support of his arguments,
referred to judgment Santi Hazra Vs New Indian
Assurance Co. Limited and another 2015 ACJ
2872 of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Calcutta and National Insurance Co. Limited Vs
Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and others 2008 (4) RCR
(Civil) 485/486. The contention of learned counsel
is not acceptable because in the present case, the
driving licence is not invalid because of its expiry
or the respondent no.1 being not competent to
driver offending vehicle rather, driving licence of
respondent no.1 was treated to be cancelled on the
date of accident being not digitized into smart card
format. Hence, issue under consideration is held in
favour of respondent no.3 insurance company and
against respondent no.1 to the effect that driving
licence possessed by respondent no.1 was cancelled
being not digitized into smart card format."
11. A perusal of the record reveals that the driving licence of the
driver of the offending vehicle stood duly renewed up to 01.04.2015,
whereas the accident in question occurred on 23.11.2014. It is therefore an
undisputed factual position that, on the date of the accident, the driving
licence was valid and subsisting.
5 of 7
FAO-5696-2017 (O&M) -6-
12. The material further reflects that the Government of Nagaland
issued a notification (Ex. R-7), the relevant portion of Ex.R-7 is reproduced
as under:-
"with a view to authenticate genuine driving licences, all
licence holders possessing licences in booklet or other
manual formats, as distinct from the smart-card format,
must report to the licensing authority for digitization and
issuance of smart cards. This process must be completed
by December 2014, after which driving licences other
than those in smart-card format shall be treated as
cancelled."
13. A conjoint reading of the said notification and the evidence on
record clearly shows that the last date prescribed for verification and
conversion into smart-card format was 31st December 2014. The accident,
however, occurred on 23.11.2014, i.e., prior to the expiry of the said
deadline. Thus, as of the date of the accident, the licence could not have been
treated as cancelled merely on account of non-digitization, for the period
allowed for completing such conversion had not yet lapsed.
14. The learned Tribunal proceeded on the premise that the licence
stood "cancelled" on the date of the accident solely because it had not yet
been digitized. This inference is fundamentally flawed. The cancellation
contemplated by the notification was not automatic upon the existence of a
booklet-type licence; rather, such cancellation would operate only after the
cut-off date December 2014 had passed without compliance. In the present
case, the accident occurred before the expiry of the grace period.
Consequently, the driving licence of respondent no.1 remained valid on the
relevant date.
6 of 7
FAO-5696-2017 (O&M) -7-
15. The learned Tribunal, therefore, erred in granting recovery
rights to the insurer by treating the licence as cancelled on the date of the
accident. The insurer failed to establish any statutory breach under Section
149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There is no allegation that the driver
was in any manner incompetent or disqualified to drive the vehicle in
question. The sole ground pressed non-digitization of the licence does not
render the licence invalid prior to the notified deadline.
16. In these circumstances, the findings of the learned Tribunal
holding that the licence was invalid and consequently granting recovery
rights in favour of the insurance company are unsustainable and liable to be
set aside. The insurance company, having failed to prove any breach of
policy conditions, remains fully liable to indemnify the insured and satisfy
the award.
17. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed.
The impugned findings granting recovery rights to the insurer are hereby set
aside, and the insurance company shall remain solely liable to compensate
the claimant.
18. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants
at the time of admission of the appeal, is ordered to be refunded to them.
19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
15.12.2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ayub JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
