FAO No. 1871 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1871 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.03.2010 Budh Ram and another ....Appellants Versus Balbir and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. T.C. Dhanwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. V.K. Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.4. VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) This appeal, by the driver and owner, is directed against the impugned part of the award dated 30.11.2007, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, vide which while allowing claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, of the claimant/respondents, the right of recovery has been granted to the Insurance Company for recovering the awarded amount from the appellants. As the dispute is only as to whether the right of recovery could be granted to the Insurance Company, in the facts and circumstances of the case, only relevant facts to this controversy are required to be noticed. It is not in dispute that on appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal, recorded a finding that the accident took place on 30.9.2005 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle No. RJ- FAO No. 1871 of 2008 (O&M) -2- 14G/8342 driven by appellant No.1. It was also not disputed, that the claimant/respondents, were entitled to compensation on account of death of Smt. Soma Devi. One of the pleas raised by the Insurance Company was that it was not liable to indemnify the insured, as the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. On the pleadings of respondent No.3 i.e. Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issue: - “4. Whether the respondent No.1 was not having driving licence? OPR3.” The learned Tribunal, on issue No.4 recorded a finding that respondent-Insurance Company had led no evidence to prove this issue and issues No.3 and 4 i.e. as to whether the claim petition was collusive, and that appellant No.1, was not having a valid driving licence, were decided against the Insurance Company. In spite of a positive finding on issues No.3 and 4, while granting relief, liberty was granted to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the driver and owner. This was for the reason that, on the date of accident i.e. 30.9.2005, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a driving licence, as it had expired on 23.9.2005. That is to say, that on the date of accident there was no valid driving licence with driver-appellant. This finding of the learned Tribunal on the face of it cannot be sustained. The driver of the offending vehicle, admittedly had a valid driving licence, which was valid upto 23.9.2005 and was thereafter got renewed from 5.10.2005 to 4.10.2008 i.e. within the statutory period FAO No. 1871 of 2008 (O&M) -3- prescribed, under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under: - “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 be, apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learner's licence. (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. (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. (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 FAO No. 1871 of 2008 (O&M) -4- 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 competence to drive referred to in sub-section (3) of section 9. (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. (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.” The bare reading of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, would show that the findings of the learned Tribunal holding that the driver, did not have a valid driving licence, are contrary to the statutory provisions of law. Consequently, this appeal is allowed, impugned part of the award, giving liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the appellants, is ordered to be quashed. The liability to pay is ordered to be joint and several, with no right of recovery. No costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 09, 2010 R.S.