F.A.O. No.5978 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No.5978 of 2002 Date of Decision:24.12.2008 Devinder Singh and others ............... Petitioners Versus Rambha Devi and others ............Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr.G.S. Punia, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Vandna Malhotra, Advocate for Insurance Company. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes K.KANNAN J. **** The driver and owner of the vehicle, who had been burdened with the Award, exonerating the Insurance Company are the appellants before this Court. The justification for relieving the insurer was that the driver did not have an effective driving licence on the date of accident but had renewed the same subsequent to the date of accident. 2. At the trial Court, the Tribunal found that the official from the RTO had produced a document showing that driving licence had expired on 16.05.1996, when the accident had taken place on 23.02.1997. The Tribunal had adverted to the fact that the official had also deposed in his evidence that it was possible that the driving licence could have been renewed in some other Division of the RTO. 3. The appellants who are driver and owner of the vehicle had filed C.M. No.1173-CII of 2003 before this Court stating that the licence had F.A.O. No.5978 of 2002 -2- been actually renewed but it was not filed before the Court. The copy of the renewed driving licence had been filed showing that it had been renewed upto 14.05.2005. However, the application had been dismissed by this Court on 23.01.2003, stating that the licence appended to the application was totally irrelevant to the present controversy. While it was possible to see from the copy of driving licence that there had been a renewal, there is nothing on the document to suggest that the renewal had been made even before the accident at the relevant time. 4. The contention of the appellant was that so long as the driver held a driving licence and was not disqualified from possessing one, the fact that the driving licence had expired or the renewal had been made subsequent to the accident was not relevant. It might be possible to make such an inference, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others (2004) 3 SCC 297. This judgment and catena of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Chandra and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & others (2007) 10 SCC 650 had been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Babu Tiwari Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors (2008) 8 SCC 165. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered the judgment in the context of Section 15 of Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under:- “Section 15.-Renewal of driving licences (1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry: Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal: Provided further that where the application is for the renewal of a licence to drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the applicant has attained the age of forty years, the same shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8, and the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 8, shall so far as may F.A.O. No.5978 of 2002 -3- be, apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learner's licence. Corresponding Law-Section 15(1) corresponds to Section 11(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act No.IV of 1939). (2) An application for the renewal of a driving licence shall be made in such form and accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Corresponding Law-Section 15(2) corresponds to Section 11(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act No.IV of 1939). (3) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made previous to, or not more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in this behalf. Corresponding Law- Section 15(3) corresponds to Section 11(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act No.IV of 1939). (4) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Provided that the fee referred to in sub-section (3) may be accepted by the licensing authority in respect of an application for the renewal of a driving licence made under this sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from applying within the time specified in sub- section (3). Provided further that if the application is made more than five years after the driving licence has ceased to be effective, the licensing authority may refuse to renew the driving licence, unless the applicant undergoes and passes to its satisfaction the test of comptence to drive referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 9. Corresponding Law.-Section 15(4) corresponds to Section 11 (3-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act No.IV 1939). (5) Where the application for renewal has been rejected, the fee paid shall be refunded to such extent and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Corresponding Law-Section 15(5) corresponds to Section 11(3- B) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act No.IV of 1939). (6) Where the authority renewing the driving licence is not the authority which issued the driving licence it shall intimate the fact of renewal to the authority which issued the driving licence. F.A.O. No.5978 of 2002 -4- Corresponding Law-Section 15(6) corresponds to Section 11 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act No.IV of 1939). The Hon'ble Supreme Court said in Ram Babu Tiwari's case (supra):- "It is beyond any doubt or dispute that only in the event an application for renewal of licence is filed within a period of 30 days from the date of expiry thereof, the same would be renewed automatically which means that even if an accident had taken place with the aforementioned period, the driver may be held to be possessing a valid licence. The proviso appended to sub- section (1) of Section 15, however, clearly states that the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal in the event the application for renewal of a licence is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry. It is, therefore, evident that as, on renewal of the licence on such terms, the driver of the vehicle cannot be said to be holding a valid licence, the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured.” 5. The effect of this judgment on the facts at hand admits of no doubt that the appellants are not entitled to be indemnified by the insurer. 6. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 24, 2008 Pankaj*