F.A.O.NO. 748 OF 1997 and F.A.O.No. 749 of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 748 OF 1997 Date of decision:10th September, 2010 United India Insurance Company, Kurukshetra having its Regional Office in Sector 8. Chandigarh through Shri R.C.Bansal Asstt. Manager duly constituted Attorney. .......Appellant Versus Dharam Singh and others ........Respondents F.A.O.No. 749 of 1997 United India Insurance Company, Kurukshetra having its Regional Office in Sector 8. Chandigarh through Shri R.C.Bansal Asstt. Manager duly constituted Attorney. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Gurmeet Kaur and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the Insurance Company/appellant. Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No F.A.O.NO. 748 OF 1997 and F.A.O.No. 749 of 1997 2 K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeals are by the insurer, claiming that the driver at the relevant time of the accident was a minor and the licence which had been issued to him ought not have been issued to him. The driving licence had been produced at the trial and the validity of the licence as regards the genuineness was not seriously in the dispute. No attempt was made by the Insurer that the Licencing Authority had not issued such a licence or that the signature found was not that of the Licencing Authority. 2. It was brought out in the cross examination of the driver that he was 22 years at the time of his evidence and the licence had been issued about approximately 7 years earlier. This so called chance admission was used by the insurer to contend that the licence must have been therefore, issued when he was 15 years of age and such a licence is void and the driver could not be driving a motor vehicle in a public place when he was less than 18 years of age as per Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). If there was any definite proof relating to the age of the driver, the argument could have carry some weight. If the evidence was that he was 22 years of age and licence had been issued approximately 7 years back, it must be only taken as an evidence of a person who was illiterate and no importance could be attributed to the same. I would rather take a presumption of an official act being done to be lawfully in terms of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, than rely on vague statements about F.A.O.NO. 748 OF 1997 and F.A.O.No. 749 of 1997 3 approximate age. 3. The Tribunal found that even he had been a minor, the Insurer shall not be able to contend that the licence was not duly issued but it could have only made possible for the authorities to take appropriate action under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act itself. The effect of issue of licence when a person is less than 18 years of age have has come up for consideration before the Commissioner of Police and others vs. Mukesh Kumar and another (2002) 1 ACC 82, which held that the licence issued to the minor through misrepresentation is not void ab initio, unless declared so by a competent Licencing Authority in accordance with law. There however, was a different line of breach in a very early judgment in Union of India vs. Lal Ban Bandiya AIR 1958 V.N that held, the driving of the vehicle by a person who was less than 18 years could be an offence and it would be so even when the licence had been issued by the authorities in ignorance. This decision must only be seen to be the consequence on the person who had obtained the licence by deceit and his liability for being proceeded against criminal. It will have no bearing to the validity of licence itself. The Madras High Court judgment in A.Maniyara Manickam vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Madhurai Division-II) Ltd. represented by its Managing Director(1999) 3 MLJ 384, was a case where driving licence had been issued to a person when he was 17 years of age but it had been subsequently renewed. The accident itself took place, when he F.A.O.NO. 748 OF 1997 and F.A.O.No. 749 of 1997 4 was a major. The High Court held that when the licence was not cancelled or revoked, the licence was held to be valid and liability could not be doubted. 4. The above statement of law is only brought out that Insurer cannot be benefited by any mis-representation or a person who could have duped the authority about his age to secure a licence. All the terms of the policy would show is that it should be by a person who is duly licenced. If that licence exists and it is not cancelled, then it can not avail to insurer to seek for recovery against the owner on a complaint that there had been a violation of terms of policy. 5. The appeals by the insurer would, therefore, required to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the case would require to be examined for enhancement of quantum of compensation. Even without a cross appeal, I would undertake such an exercise only if the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly low or in violation for any legal principles. In the case relating to a death, the Tribunal had awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,05,000/- for a driver who was aged 37 years and in another case, it had awarded Rs. 60,000/- for injuries suffered. I have looked into the mode of assessment of compensation, and looked into evidence adduced and I am satisfied that the Tribunal has taken all the relevant factors before arriving at the respective sums of compensation. I find no scope for reappraisal regarding F.A.O.NO. 748 OF 1997 and F.A.O.No. 749 of 1997 5 the quantum. All the appeals are dismissed and a plea for enhancement is rejected. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 10th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik