FAO No.1969 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1969 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.11.2011 National Insurance Company Ltd. Appellant v Smt.Dharamwati and Others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4 .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited against the Award dated 9.9.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (for short the Tribunal) whereby the Ld. Tribunal has held liable all the respondents, including the appellant jointly and severally to pay the amount of compensation. Vide order dated 3.3.2011, the appeal against the claimants was dismissed, in limine, by this Court. Briefly stated the facts are, that on 18.6.2006, Sanjeev Kumar (deceased) was standing on the road near Kithwari Turn Bridge falling in the area of Palwal City. At that point of time, a vehicle Hydra (Crane) bearing registration No. HR-38-J-2224 (offending vehicle) was in operation at the Bridge. Satish, respondent No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle suddenly drove the vehicle towards back side in a rash and negligent FAO No.1969 of 2011 2 manner, as a result of which, Sanjeev Kumar was run over by the tyre of offending vehicle. He sustained injuries and died. FIR No. 315 dated 18.6.2006 was registered under sections 279, 304-A IPC at Police Station, City Palwal. Claim petition No. 124 of 2008 Sunder section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short the Act) was filed by Smt. Dharamwati and Sh.Vijay Kumar, parents of deceased Sanjeev Kumar. It was alleged that at the time of death, Sanjeev Kumar was 21 years old and was getting salary of Rs. 6000/- per month. He was employed with Bombay Industrial Security Force, Bombay. The claimants were totally dependent on him. . Upon notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2, driver and owner filed written statement and controverted the allegations of the claimants. The alleged accident was denied by them. Respondent No.3, the Insurance Company denied the allegations of the claimants. However, it was admitted that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1 Whether Sanjeev Kumar died in an accident caused by offending vehicle Hydra No. HR 38-J-2224 on 18.6.2006 at about 8.30 a.m on road near Kithwari More Bridge falling within the area of Palwal City due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, as alleged? OPA 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPA 3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, if so, its effect? OPR3 4. Relief” FAO No.1969 of 2011 3 The ld. Tribunal after appreciation of the evidence on record, believed the version of the claimant-Vijay Ram, father of deceased that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 of the offending vehicle resulting into death of Sanjeev Kumar. During cross-examination, the testimony of this witness could not be shaken. No evidence contrary to this was led by the respondents. Further, the testimony finds corroboration from the contents of FIR, Ex.P1 and post mortem report Ex.P2. The Ld. Tribunal decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. As regards the income of the deceased, the Ld. Tribunal observed that as per pleadings of the claimants, Sanjeev Kumar used to earn Rs. 6000/- per month by working as Security Guard in Bombay Industrial Security Force, Bombay. However, no documentary proof was placed on record by the claimants. Hence the Ld. Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3000/- per month and by applying the cut of 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased, the figure i.e dependency of parents arrived at Rs. 2000/- per month. So far as the question that whether the father Vijay Ram, was dependent upon the deceased, the Ld. Tribunal observed that in view of the guidelines framed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009(6) SCC, 121, claimant No2. cannot be treated to be dependent upon the deceased. The Ld. Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,42,000/- in favour of claimant No.1, mother of deceased. All the respondents were jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of compensation. While deciding issue No.3, the Ld. Tribunal in para Nos. 25 to FAO No.1969 of 2011 4 27 of the Award, observed as under:- “25. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3, Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the awarded amount as the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident in question. In support of his contention, he referred to the statement of Shri Arvind Kumar RW-1, Junior Clerk, Licensing Authority, Bulandshahar (U.P.) who deposed that as per record of their office, licence Ex.R-1 was not issued by their authority and same is fake. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has thus argued that from the testimony of RW-1, which was produced by respondent No.1 on the record is fake and respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. He further argued that although the respondent No.1 has placed on record another licence Ex.RX. The same is false and has been created by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to avoid their liability. The licence Ex.RX was not renewed on the date of accident and as such, it was also not effective on the date of accident in question. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on Ishwar Chandra versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2007 (2) TAC (Supreme Court) 393, The M/s Parkash Transport Corporation Society Limited & Others versus Tripurari Saran Tripathi & Others 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 200, Devinder Singh & Others versus Rambha Devi 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 400 and New India Assurance Company Limited FAO No.1969 of 2011 5 versus Suresh Chand Aggarwal 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 500. 26.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 has contended that the respondent No.1 has placed on record licence Ex. R-1 under misconception and in fact, he had valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, which is Ex. RX, which has been duly proved by RW-4, Junior Assistant, office of District Transport Office, Faridkot. 27.I think there is merit in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Jeevan Lal, Junior Assistant Office of District Transport Office, Faridkot appeared as RW-4 and categorically deposed on the basis of summoned record that licence No. 2228/ FDR/3136/H/90 is in the name of Satish Kumar son of Mast Ram and the same was issued by their authority in the year 1990 and further it was renewed upto 30.12.2012, the copy of the same is Ex. RX. From the statement of RW-4, it is proved that the respondent No.1 had valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The licence Ex.RX was issued in the year 1990 and it is valid upto 30.12.2012. There is nothing on record to show that on the date of accident the licence was not got renewed by the respondent No.1 and it was not valid on the date of accident. As such, the authorities on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for he respondent No.3 are distinguishable on facts and the ratio of the same is not applicable to the FAO No.1969 of 2011 6 facts of the present case. There is nothing on record to prove that licence Ex. RX is a fabricated document or has been created later on. In this view of the matter, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to the claimant No.1. Both the issues No. 2 & 3 are disposed of accordingly in favour of claimant No.1.” Aggrieved against the same, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company argued that licence Ex. R-1, produced by respondent No.3 was fake as the same was not issued by the Office of the Licensing Authority, Bulandshahr. The same cannot be considered to be a valid and effective driving licence. He further submitted that the Ld. Tribunal declined to take on record document Ex. RW2/A, which was in mutilated condition and held that Insurance Company was liable to pay the amount of compensation. His further argument is that as per Section 6 of the Act, one person cannot hold two licenses at the same time. The first licence Ex. RW-1 was found to be fake. The Ld. Tribunal has not taken into consideration the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company on this point. He pointed out that relying upon the second licence Ex. RX, the Ld. Tribunal held the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation with other respondents. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4 submitted that the Ld. Tribunal has rightly held all the respondents jointly and severally to pay the awarded compensation. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone FAO No.1969 of 2011 7 through the file. A perusal of the record shows that the licence Ex. R-1, produced on record by respondent No.3 has not been issued by the Licensing Authority, Bulandshahr (U.P). The argument of learned counsel for respondent No.1 before the Ld. Tribunal was that the said licence (Ex.R- 1) was placed on record under misconception and in fact the driver had valid and effective driving licence Ex.RX at the time of accident. It shows that the respondent No. 3 was having two licences at the time of accident. Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act bars holding of more than one licence by a person. For the sake of reference, section 6 of the Act is reproduced below- 6. Restrictions on the holding of driving licences-(1) No person shall, while he holds any driving licence for the time being in force, hold any other driving licence except a learner's licence or a driving licence issued in accordance with the provisions of section 18 or a document authorising, in accordance with the rules made under section 139, the personal specified therein to drive a motor vehicle. (2) No holder of a driving licence or a learner's licence shall permit it to be used by any other person. (3) xx xx xx” A reading of the above section clearly shows that a person cannot hold more than one driving licence at a relevant time. In the instant case, respondent No.3, driver of the offending vehicle has produced on record one licence Ex. R-1 purported to have been issued by the Licensing FAO No.1969 of 2011 8 Authority, Bulandshahr and later on, another licence, Ex. RX issued by the Licensing Authority, Faridkot. When the licence Ex. R-1 has not been proved on record, and RW1 stated in his cross-examination that the said licence has not been issued by the said office, this Court has no hesitation in saying that driver-respondent No. 3 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company find force that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. It seems that the Ld. Tribunal has ignored this aspect of the case and while relying upon the licence Ex.RX issued by the Licensing Authority, Faridkot decided the issue No. 3 whereby all the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Even otherwise, as per provisions of the Act (section 6 referred to above), it can safely be said that the driver-respondent No.3 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. He committed illegality in keeping two licences in his possession at a time. The stand taken by the Insurance Company hold ground to the extent that the licence Ex.R1 was fake and the Insurance Company cannot be held responsible to pay the compensation to the claimants. In view of the above discussion, this Court feels that the Ld. Tribunal has wrongly decided Issue No.3. The Insurance Company is absolved from paying the compensation and respondents No. 3 & 4, driver and owner are held to be responsible to pay the awarded amount. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The appellant- Insurance Company is granted the recovery rights. The amount of compensation, if FAO No.1969 of 2011 9 any, paid or to be paid to the claimants, by the Insurance Company, shall be recoverable from respondents No.3 & 4, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary, Haryana to initiate appropriate proceedings as per law, against the driver- respondent No.3 for holding two licences at a time and for procuring and keeping a fake driving licence. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 18.11.2011 MS