55 0 1 FAOlloA148 of2008 1 0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAOlNoA148 of2008 Dateofdecisionl 11012010 OrientalInsuranceCompany Limited AppeUant Versus GurcharanSinghandothers FAOlVo4149 of2008 1 r OrientalInsurance Limited AppeUant 0 Versus C Babluc NarenderKumarandothers I 1 L01 CORAMHONBLE MRe JUSTICE ANJINDAL I Presentl MrMrigank SharmaAdvocatefor MrAshwani Sharma Advocatefor the ChhabraAdvocatefor No and4 Z S 844 S AeNJINDAL J r Two appeals NosA148 and 4149 of 2008 prefenedby the I lerein referredas the having 08 ansen out of the awarddated292008 passedby Motor Accident Claims 7 Tribunal Panipat to the tuneof Rs3900001ein Z 4 favour of the No 1 8 2 lerein refeued as the n and againstthe as well as No and 4 jointlyand on account of the death of Rajanc Sumit and Rs30000140Bablu cVarenderKumar on account of injuries sufferedbyhim in a motorvehicularaccident are being of bya common r The poser putbythe in aforesaidappeals is whether No Rampal was not holding a valid and effectivedriving licenceat thetimeofaccident2 In short the factsare thatduringthe night Rawat Seema 2013.04.11 14: 07 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 56 0 FAOIlo4148 of2008 2 e of 22123012007Rajanc Sumit since deceased Bablu NarenderandVishal Sharmawere goingon a tractorfromvillageJhatipur to PanipatWhentheyreachednear VishnuFactory at GToad Panipat a truck bearing NoHRe451765 drivenby its driverrashlyand came from Delhi side andstruckagainst the rear ponionof the tractor Due to the impactof the accident Rajanc Sumitfell downfrom thetractorandcrushedbythesaidtruck He diedat thespotwhereasBablu 0 C3 c Narenderreceived multiple uuunes FlRllT030 dated I 3 2302007 under Sections279 and 304eAIPC was against No The claimantsbeingtheparentsof the deceasedhad Z filed theclaim petition which was contestedby No and4 as well as the I From oftheparties issueswere framedl a5 1 WhetherRajanc Sumithad expired andthe Bablu c Narendersustained injuriesin a motor vehicle accident 7 Z which took placeOll 2301 2007 due to rash and W0 tl drivingof truck bearing NolR454765 by N0170PP 2 If issueNol is provedto what amount of the claimantsare entitledandfromwhom20PP 3 Whetherthe No had an effectiveandvaliddriving 1 licenceon thedateofaccident20PR 4 Relief Both theparties led evidence whileholdingthatthe accidenttook placeon account of thefault on thepartof No andhe was holding a valid drivinglicence theclaim petitions and Rawat Seema 2013.04.11 14: 07 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 57 0 FAOlVoA148 of2008 3 awarded in theaforesaidtenns While argumentsthe has the validityof thed8vinglicence this argumentleamedcounsel for No and 4 has urgedthat Ram Pal was havinga valid drivinglicence He has takenme through the statementof RW2 Vishal 1 Nagpalowner ofthe offending truck as well as RW3 MunishKumar Clerk 0 SDMecum47TO Office PanipatMunishKumaW31while in C the Witnessbox disclosedthat the said licence was renewedon two I 1D occasions by his offlce Vishal NagpalRW21testifiedthat he had got I verifiedthefact withregard to therenewalofthe licencefromtheLicencing Z AuthorityPanipat While arguingthat the owner had madebonaOde r mquiries with regard to thevalidityof thelicence thereforeno breachto theconditionsofthe policyofinsuranceas underSection149 08 al iil ofthe MotorVehiclesAct 1988couldbeimputed to them Reliance has beenplacedon the 2008 111RCR ICivl 851 titled 2 as Z Oriental InsuranceCompany Limited vsthi Rai and 2008411RCR L1 Civil 837tied as Prem Kumari and othersvse Prahlad Devand others AftergOingthrough theevidenceandthelaw citedbythecounsel for the partiesit is observedthat argumentsadvancedon behalf of the san ment ThoughRW1 MaheshKumar clerk of the offlce of DTOe Faridkot has deposed that as per record drivinglicenceExPll bearing number89171S111thename of SwaranSinghson of BishanSingh 1 andit is not in the name of Ram Pal However he hasdenied the of the licencing on the drivinglicencebut RW3 Munish Kumar Clerk ln the office of Regional Authority Panipatin his statement has deposedthat renewal entry of DL Rawat Seema 2013.04.11 14: 07 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 58 0 e S1 FAOlVo148 of2008 4 of Licencing Faridkot is in the name of Nol Ram Pal as per their record and the renewal numberof said licenceis and the said licencewas firstlyrenewedin thename of Ram Pal we 23102002 upto150005 andlateronit was againrenewedwef 21102005upto15102008 Hehas also thatfor therenewalof thelicence r no NOC is askedbythe renewal fromthe bywhich licence 0 was issued C and he has also provedthe relevantentriesof the renewalas ExR4 and I e5 Ex5 He has admittedthat the licence cannotbe renewedwithout I no NOC fromthelicencing Z No Vishal Nagpal W21owner ofthe truck in his C statement while his affidavit ExW21A has deposedthat Nol Ram Pal was as driverbyhim in thevear 2004 b8 andhehadcheckedhisdrivinglicence andhadverifledfrom him aboutthe validityof the same He had also verified that the drivinglicence of w Z No from AuthorityPanipat and thesaidlicencewas 9 Il found validlyrenewedfrom the said and he himself had also assuredaboutthecompetency of thedrivingabilityofthe Nol Ram Pal bytakingthetest driveandhe foundhim competent in thisregard It may 6ntherbe observedthatthedriving licencefor HTN could not be issuedbytheDT0 concemed ThereforethestatementofMaheshKumar is ofno consequenceMunish Kumarwas not askedeven a singlequestion The law is well settledthata fakelicenceissuedbythelicencing by way of its renewal does not becomea legaland valid one However in the presentcase as discussedabove RW2 Vishal Nagpal Rawat Seema 2013.04.11 14: 07 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 59 0 FAOlVoA148 of2008 5 1 owner of the truck has that he had 1 Nol as driver afterveriflcationof thedrivinglicenceof the No and as has been by RW3 drivinglicence of No hadbeenrenewedbytheLicencingAuthorityPanipat on two occasions So No aRerfull verification and 1 inquirieshad Nol andthustherewas no breachof 0 Section 149 axiil of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and in these 0 circumstancestheinsurance companywouldnot beabsolvedof itsliability eD as laid downin Prem Kumari and otherscase lorae I Thus in Vlew ofthe abovediscussionit couldbesafeIy observed Z that the claimantswere rightlyheld entitledto receive the amount of r Rs3900001 and Rs300001 as and the I and Nos3 and 4 are jointlyand 08 liableto paythesame though theflrst chargeshalwaysremain withthe OrientalInsurance Limited 7 Z90 findings retumedbythe Tribunal on issuesNo2 and 3 Lle standsafflrmed Finding no merits in the presentappealsthe same are dismissed JUDGE 10102010 MAMTAII DP7289 0 lJV 761 D 7618 7 l Rawat Seema 2013.04.11 14: 07 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document