IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 451 of 2005 Reserved on: 22.9.2011 Date of decision: 13.10.2011 National Insurance Company Ltd. …Appellant Versus Nant Ram & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? Yes For then appellant: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J 1. This petition by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 30.7.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan whereby it held that the driver had a valid driving licence and, therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to satisfy the award. 2. The only issue in question is whether respondent No.3 Hari Kishan, who was the owner-cum-driver of truck No. HIS-496, which was involved in the accident, held a valid driving licence or not. 3. It would be pertinent to mention that earlier also an award was passed against the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company filed FAO(MVA) No. 573 of 2000 2 against the award of the Tribunal dated 11th August, 2000. This appeal was decided by a detailed judgment passed by the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court on 19th October, 2004. 4. When the matter was pending before the Tribunal, the driver produced driving licence No.123/SLN/85 issued by the Licensing Authority, Solan marked as Ext. RW-1/D. This licence permitted the holder to drive light motor vehicles and medium goods vehicles. It now stands settled beyond pale of doubt that the vehicle in question was heavy goods vehicle and therefore, this licence was not valid for driving a heavy goods vehicles. Virtually at the stage of arguments, the owner-cum-driver was permitted by the Tribunal to introduce a second driving licence even though all along he had never disputed the fact that he had been issued driving licence No. 123/SLN/85 by the Licensing Authority, Solan. The Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the earlier judgment observed as follows:- “How could a person be issued two driving licences for the same period and how could he legitimately possess two driving licences is a matter which should also have been fallen for consideration of the Tribunal at that very time and before the second licence was allowed and permitted to be produced on record, the Tribunal at least should have applied its mind to the aforesaid aspect of the matter. Unfortunately it did not do so.” 3 5. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Chief Justice remanded the case to the Tribunal and the operative portion of the judgment is in the following terms:- “For the foregoing reasons, I am convinced that a prejudice has been caused to the appellant with respect to the wrong finding by the Tribunal on Issue No.4 and that this prejudice can be undone by remanding the matter afresh to the Tribunal for its consideration with respect to the validity of the second driving licence, i.e. Ex.R1/A- 1( I have already clearly held in unequivocal terms that the first driving licence did not authorize or permit respondent No.3 to drive Vehicle No. HIS 496). In the process of reconsideration, the Tribunal undoubtedly shall afford opportunities to the parties to lead evidence as well as evidence in rebuttal.” 6. A bare perusal of the judgment passed in the earlier case clearly shows that the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice has posed a very important question as to whether a person could legitimately possess two driving licences or not. This was a question required to be answered by the Tribunal. 7. Unfortunately, even after remand, the Tribunal did not decide this question. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the licence Ext.R-1/A-1 had been issued by the Licensing Authority, Guwahati and held that the Insurance Company had failed to show that the driving licence had not 4 been issued from Guwahati and consequently held the Insurance Company liable to pay the award. 8. Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, forcefully contended that one of the moot questions which arose for consideration was whether a person can hold two driving licences or not. She submits that there is sufficient material on record to indicate that the licence issued from Guwahati is a fake one. At this stage it would be apposite to refer to certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act) relating to driving licences. 9. A driving licence has been defined in Section 2(10) of the Act. Section 3 of the Act provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence authorizing him to drive such vehicle. Section 4 of the Act reads as follows:- “4. Age limit in connection with driving of motor vehicles.-(1) No person under the age of eighteen years shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place: Provided that {a motor cycle with engine capacity not exceeding 50cc} may be driven in a public place by a person after attaining the age of sixteen years. (2) Subject to the provisions of section 18, no person under the age of twenty years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place. (3) No learner’s licence or driving licence shall be issued to any person to drive a vehicle of the class to which he has made an application unless he is eligible to drive that class of vehicle under this section.” 5 10. A bare perusal of this Section shows that no person under the age of 18 years could drive any motor vehicle except a motor cycle having capacity of less than 50cc in which case the minimum age is 16 years. As far as transport vehicles are concerned, no person under the age of 20 years can be permitted to drive a transport vehicle in any public place. Section 4(3) of the Act clearly lays down that even a learner’s licence shall be issued only to a person who is entitled to drive that particular class of vehicle. Therefore, it is obvious that even a learner’s licence to drive a transport vehicle can be issued only to a person who is at least 20 years old. 11. Section 5 makes the owner of the motor vehicle responsible for contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. In the present case, we are dealing with an owner-cum-driver. Section 6(1) of the Act reads as follows: “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 authorizing, in accordance with the rules made under section 139, the person specified therein to drive a motor vehicle.” 12. This clearly indicates that a person who holds a driving licence which is in force cannot hold any other driving licence except a learner’s licence. We are not concerned with Section 18 or the authorization under Section 139 of the Act. 6 13. Section 7 of the Act reads as follows:- “7. Restrictions on the granting of learner’s licences for certain vehicles.- (1) No person shall be granted a learner’s licence to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year. (2) No person under the age of eighteen years shall be granted a learner’s licence to drive a motor cycle without gear except with the consent in writing of the person having the care of the person desiring the learner’s licence.” 14. A combined reading of Sections 3 to 7 of the Act clearly indicates that the minimum age for grant of licence except a motor cycle without gear is 18 years. In the case of transport vehicle it is 20 years. The Legislature in its wisdom has also put another condition that a person can be granted a learner’s licence to drive a transport vehicle only if he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year. There can be no manner of doubt that no person below the age of 20 years can be granted a learner’s licence to drive a transport vehicle. 15. Section 8(1) of the Act reads as follows:- “8. Grant of learner’s licence.-(1) Any person who is not disqualified under section 4 for driving a motor vehicle and who is not for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence may, subject to the provisions of section 7, apply to the licensing authority having jurisdiction in the area- (i) in which he ordinarily resides or carries on business, or 7 (ii) in which the school or establishment referred to in section 12 from where he intends to receive instruction in driving a motor vehicle is situate, for the issue to him of a learner’s licence.” 16. A perusal of this provision clearly shows that a learner’s licence has to be granted by the Licensing Authority having jurisdiction over the area where the applicant ordinarily resides or carries on business or where he is receiving training and instructions to drive the motor vehicle. Similar provisions exist in Section 9 of the Act. In case a person is granted a driving licence for a particular class of vehicle he can apply to the Licensing Authority having jurisdiction in the area in which he resides or carries on business for addition of other class of vehicles in the licence under Section 11 of the Act. 17. The aforesaid provisions clearly indicate that a person can hold only one driving licence, no person can be permitted to hold more than one driving licence. The only additional driving licence that a person may hold at one time is a learner’s licence in addition to his regular driving licence but after he completes his learning period successfully the addition has to be made in the main licence and not by issuing a new licence. In fact this is the only reasonable interpretation which can be given to the Act. In this behalf, it is pertinent to mention that under Sections 16, 19 and 20 of the Act, the Licensing Authorities and the Courts have the 8 power to revoke licences or disqualify person(s) from driving vehicles. The provisions of these sections will be set at naught in case a person is held entitled to hold two driving licences. Similarly, there will be no effective suspension or disqualification of a driving licence in terms of Sections 21 to 23 of the Act in case any person holds more than one driving licence. Section 24 of the Act authorizes the Court or authority making an order of disqualification to make endorsement upon the driving licence about the particulars of the order of disqualification. Therefore, every time when a person is challaned and convicted under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, an endorsement can be made on the driving licence. These endorsements under Section 25 of the Act are required to be transferred on new or duplicate driving licence unless the driver is entitled to have a driving licence issued to him free from endorsement. If more than one licence is issued then the whole purpose of making endorsement(s) would become illusory. Therefore, I am of the considered view that no person can have two valid driving licences and can only have one driving licence. 18. Coming to the case in hand admittedly the first driving licence produced by Shri Hari Kishan owner-cum- driver of the vehicle was driving licence No. 123/SLN/85. It was for LMV and MGV only and was issued on 29.4.1985. The endorsement for MGV was made on 6.5.1989. A duplicate driving licence was issued on 20.7.1995 and the 9 licence was renewed from time to time. The date of birth of Shri Hari Kishan is 24.11.1966, therefore, he turned 18 years on 24.11.1984. He could not have been granted a driving licence to drive transport vehicle prior to 24.11.1986. The second driving licence produced by Shri Hari Kishan Ext. RW- 1/A-2 is a laminated driving licence. The number given is H-3582. The address in the licence is T.P Nagar Benthla, Guwahati, Assam. The licence shows that it is valid up to 24.11.2002. On the back of this licence old date is mentioned as 30.11.1984 and thereafter it is stated to have been renewed w.e.f. 25.11.1999 to 24.11.2002 for HMV. There is no material on record to show whether this driving licence was ever renewed w.e.f. 30.11.1984 to 1999. 19. The learned Tribunal held the Insurance Company liable mainly on the ground that the Insurance Company had not discharged the onus which lay upon it to show that the driving licence was invalid and the main ground was that the official from the office of the District Transport Officer, Guwahati had not been examined. The Tribunal rightly held that the licence issued from Solan did not entitle the driver to drive a heavy goods vehicle but held that since the other licence issued from Guwahati entitled him to drive a heavy motor vehicle from 25.11.1999 to 24.11.2002, he had a valid driving licence. The accident in question occurred on 8.3.1997 and the driver has not produced on record any document to show that he held a valid licence to drive a heavy 10 goods vehicle even from Guwahati in the year 1997. The Tribunal has, however, drawn a presumption that the driver must have held a valid driving licence on 8.3.1997, the date of accident. It has also wrongly assumed that the licence issued from Guwahati must have been renewed in between 30.11.1984 to 25.11.1999. The learned Tribunal also held that the licensing authority was different from the District Transport Officer, Kamrup, West Zone, Guwahati and as such the report of the investigator could not be relied upon. 20. After remand the parties led evidence. Hari Kishan in his statement made after remand stated that he had got a learner licence made in the year 1984 in Guwahati and later this licence was converted into heavy goods vehicle. He had got licence renewed in the year 1999 at Guwahati and the licence was Ext. RW-1/A-1. He admitted that he is a permanent resident of Solan District. He also admitted that he had got driving licence No.123/SLN/85 issued at Solan which was exhibited as Ext. RW-1/A. He had got this licence renewed from time to time at Solan. He had been to Guwahati 10-15 times. He could not give the details of his old driving licence. 21. The Insurance Company also led evidence. The most important evidence is of Khagen Gohain, the Investigator provided by the Insurance Company. He has proved on record the letter dated 30.7.2000 written by him to the District Transport Officer Kamrup, West Zone Guwahati 11 to verify whether the driving licence No. H-3582 was issued in favour of Shri Hari Kishan. According to him, this letter was returned to him in original by the District Transport Officer Kamrup, West Zone Guwahati who made an endorsement that the driving licence No. H-3582 was not issued by their office. The learned Tribunal was of the view that no reliance could be placed on the report since the District Transport Officer, Kamrup, West Zone Guwahati could not be treated to be the same as Licensing Authority, Guwahati. This finding of the learned Tribunal is also absolutely incorrect. In fact Guwahati is a part of Kamrup District and therefore, the District Transport Officer will be of Kamrup who will have overall control over Guwahati. In Himachal Pradesh also there are two districts Kangra and Sirmaur, headquarters of which have separate names, namely, Dharamshala and Nahan. Therefore, when the District Transport Officer of Kangra based at Dharamshala makes a report it obviously means that it covers the office of the Licensing Authority, Dharamshala. 22. From the aforesaid discussion it is apparent that Shri Hari Kishan had a driving licence validly issued at Solan. This licence which was issued in the year 1985 was renewed from time to time and as per the material on record was lastly renewed up to 19.7.1998. He could not have had two driving licences at the same time. There is no reason why one driver should have a driving licence to drive LMV and MGV from one 12 authority and another driving licence to drive HMV from another licensing authority. As noticed above, the second licence, which is a laminated licence, was produced only at the time of hearing. No doubt, normally it is for the Insurance Company to disprove the validity of a licence but we are dealing here with a case where the owner-cum-driver has produced one licence and has admitted that he held another licence also. In such a case it is also the duty of the owner-cum-driver to show that the licence is genuine. 23. A close examination of the licence shows that it does not even bear the signatures of Hari Kishan. There is no reference to the number of the old licence which was the only way in which the history of the licence could have been traced out. The owner-cum-driver did not produce any licence prior to 1999 to show that on the date of accident i.e. 8.3.1997 he held a valid licence to drive HMV. 24. I am constrained to observe that the way the learned Tribunal has tried to pick holes in the testimony of the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company and has disbelieved him on every count and has accepted the statement of the owner-cum-driver as the gospel truth. Nobody has proved when the licence from Guwahati was issued and if so, for what class of vehicle and when, if at all the endorsement was made to drive a heavy motor vehicle. Even if the second licence RW-1/A-2 is to be taken into consideration, it only shows that from 25.11.1999 to 13 24.11.2002 the driver had a licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle, but by no stretch of imagination can any inference be drawn that prior to this date he had held such driving licence. 25. I am of the considered view that the second licence produced by the driver from Guwahati is a fake one and in fact could not have been issued. The driver has also failed to give any explanation as to why he would go to Guwahati to renew his licence when he held a driving licence from Solan. Why could he not get an endorsement made from Solan, itself? 26. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is set aside and the Insurance Company is held entitled to recover the amount paid by it alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle. The Insurance Company shall not have to file separate proceedings and can recover the amount from the owner-cum-driver by filing execution proceedings before the learned Tribunal. No order as to costs. October 13, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) (vt) Judge