FAO No.3381 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3381 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.10.2011 Om Parkash ...Appellant Versus Smt.Saroj and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Parvej Chugh, Advocate for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.5. **** Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) The appellant, the owner of the offending dumper bearing registration No.HR-55 D 9515, has preferred the present appeal for setting aside the impugned Award dated 4.5.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, (for brevity 'the Tribunal') vide which the claim petition was allowed and the appellant was held liable to pay the compensation. Brief facts of the case are that one Satbir died in a motor vehicular accident on 26.7.2007, caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Dumber bearing registration No.HR 55D-9515. The claimants being the dependents filed the claim petition. The appellant being the owner and the Insurance company, the respondent No.5, contested the same and filed their written statements, FAO No.3381 of 2009 (O&M) 2 wherein they denied the accident and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident in question was caused by respondent No.1 while driving vehicle bearing registration No.HR-55D-9515 in a rash and negligent manner resulting into death of Satbir, as alleged?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation and if so to what extent and from whom?OPP 3. Whether respondent No.3 is not liable to make payment of any compensation on account of alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy?OPR(3) 4. Relief.” After analysing the evidence led by the parties and hearing the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal decided the issues as under:- Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimants and the death was held to be caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Dumper. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the claimants as they were the legal heirs of the deceased. The learned Tribunal Awarded a sum of Rs.4,42,000/- as compensation. FAO No.3381 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Issue No. 3 was decided against the owner and driver of the offending Dumper as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the liability was fastened upon them. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the impugned Award, the owner of the offending dumber has preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held liable the appellant to pay the compensation. He further states that the driver of the offending dumper was holding a valid and effective driving licence upto 25.5.2007 and subsequently, it was renewed on 5.9.2007. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is not qualified to drive. He further states that the driver Vikram was employed by him after a test drive and on seeing his driving licence, which was valid at that time. On the other hand, the leaned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently opposed and states that the learned Tribunal has rightly held the appellant liable to indemnify the award. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the death of Satbir has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Vikram, the driver. He was not examined by the appellant for the reasons best known to him. The driving licence Ex.R1 of Vikram, the driver was valid upto 25.5.2007, and subsequently, it was renewed on 5.9.2007. The accident in question occurred on 26.7.2007. The driving licence Ex.R1, was not valid and effective on the date of accident, FAO No.3381 of 2009 (O&M) 4 which is a clear breach of the Insurance Policy. So far as the contentions raised on behalf of the owner that the driver was appointed after the drive test, does not carry any force, for the reason that if the appellant had seen the driving licence of the driver Vikram, before employing him, then he must have been aware regarding the expiry of the driving licence. In the circumstances, he is also negligent in not insuring that his staff is not indulging in any thing that is against law. In re: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal , 2009(15) SCC 761 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “16. In the instant case, as noted above, as per the certificate issued by the licensing authority, the driving licence of the deceased driver had expired on 25th October, 1991 i.e. four months prior to the date of accident on 29th February, 1992 and it was renewed with effect from 23rd March, 1992. It is not the case of the claimant that the driver had applied for renewal of the licence within 30 days of the date of its expiry. On the contrary, it is the specific case of the appellant that the driving licence was renewed only with effect from 23rd March, 1992. From a plain reading of Section 15 of the Act, it is clear that if an application for renewal of licence is made within 30 days of the date of its expiry, the licence continues to be effective and valid without a break as the renewal dates back to the date of its expiry. FAO No.3381 of 2009 (O&M) 5 Whereas, when an application for renewal is filed after more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, gets attracted and the licence is renewed only with effect from the date of its renewal, meaning thereby that in the inter Regulation between the date of expiry of the licence and the date of its renewal, there is no effective licence in existence. The provision is clear and admits of no ambiguity. However, the stand of the claimant before the District and State Fora as also before us was that since the deceased driver was holding a valid licence and had not been disqualified from holding an effective licence, the stipulation in the afore-extracted condition was not infringed. In our view, the argument is stated to be rejected. Admittedly, having failed to apply for renewal of the driving licence within 30 days from the date of its expiry in terms of Section 15 of the Act, the licence could not be renewed with effect from the date of its expiry and therefore, between the period from 26th October, 1991 to 22nd March, 1992, the deceased driver had no valid and effective driving licence as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act. We are convinced that during this period, he did not hold at all an effective driving licence, as required in the terms and conditions governing the policy on the date of accident FAO No.3381 of 2009 (O&M) 6 i.e. 29th February, 1992. 17. As a matter of fact, in view of the clear mandate of Section 3 of the Act, the deceased driver was not even permitted to drive the insured vehicle in a public place. Furthermore, the claimant not only committed breach of the terms of the policy, he also violated the provisions of Section 5 of the Act by entrusting the vehicle to a person who did not hold a valid licence on the date of the accident. Although it was not pleaded by learned counsel for the appellant, but we fail to understand as to how the licence was and could be renewed w.e.f. 23rd March, 1992 after the death of the licence-holder on 29th February, 1992. In our opinion, therefore, the appellant was not liable to indemnify the claimant for the loss suffered by him in the accident of the insured vehicle.” As a sequel of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the well reasoned impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As a result, the present appeal is dismissed being bereft of any merit. 21.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE