IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4695 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.8.2009 Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation and another … Appellants Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.IPS Kohli Advocate and Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. A.N.Jindal, J. (Oral) This appeal is directed against the award dated 4.6.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barnala, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.3,36000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents in equal shares along with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum. However, it was further ordered that Insurance company i.e. respondent No.1 would be at liberty to recover the amount from the insured (herein referred as the appellants). As such, the appellants have preferred this appeal assailing the award for exonerating itself from the liability Brief facts of the case are that on 22.9.2002 at about 7:00 p.m. Karnail Singh was travelling in his own jeep bearing registration No.DL- 5CA-9569 in the area of Rureka Kalan, when bus no.PB-L-7905 being driven by Kulwant Singh son of Naranjan Singh, rashly and negligently, struck against the jeep. Resultantly, Karnail Singh received injuries whereas, Sukhwinder Singh Sarpanch of Rureke Kalan died. Bus No.PB-L-7905 i.e. the offending vehicle driven by Kulwant Singh was insured with National FAO No.4695 of 2005 Insurance Company Ltd. Sangrur. Consequently, Karnail Singh also died on his way to the hospital. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation against the respondents including the appellant. However, it was further observed that Insurance Company would be at liberty to recover the compensation from the insured. Now the appellant, Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation while assailing the finding on Issue No.7, observed that the Tribunal was in error while holding that respondent No.5, Kulwant Singh was not holding a valid driving license, whereas, Kulwant Singh was employed by the appellants’ authority and they never knew that he not was holding a valid driving license. Therefore, Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation could not be held responsible as the vehicle was insured with respondent No.1, Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention, has placed reliance on the judgment United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Lehru and others 2003(3) Vol.9 Accidents Compensation Judicial Reports, 1. Before pointing over the judgment as referred to above, it needs to be observed that in order to prove that respondent No.5, Kulwant Singh was not holding a valid license, there is evidence of copy of the driving license (Ex.R-3) verification by Licensing authority, Amritsar for renewing the license of Kulwant Singh (Ex.R-4) and report of the licensing authority, Hyderabad (Ex.R-1). There is no denying of fact that license was purportedly, issued by the Licensing authority, Hyderabad but the verification report made by Licensing Authority, RTA Hyderabad reveals that said license was not issued by the said authority. As regards renewal of the driving license i.e. 5.3.2002 to 13.1.2005 of Kulwant Singh son of Naranjan Singh, resident of village Naiwala, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur, there is a report on the application Ex.R-4 qua issuing of license to Kulwant Singh son of Naranjan 2 FAO No.4695 of 2005 Singh resident of Gagobua, Amritsar. In this regard, it may be observed that Kulwant Singh involved in this case, is resident of village Naiwala Tehsil Barnala. He did not disclose the fact while appearing in the witness box that he got renewed his license bearing different address i.e. resident of Gagobua, Amritsar. He did not depose to the effect that he had changed his address. Furthermore, Kulwant Singh while appearing in witness box has admitted that there is no date on the application and report as well. In any case, there is no rebuttal to the evidence that licensing authority, Hyderabad did not issue any license in the name of Kulwant Singh driver. Further, if the renewal is stated to be correct, even then the same is of no consequence as the said renewal of the fake license is no valid renewal in the eyes of law. It was so observed in case New India Assurance Co. Vs. Kamla, 2001(1) PLR, 830, (SC) that driving license cannot get its forgery outfit striped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged whereas it is proved that original copy of license Ex.R-3 was not issued by the Licensing authority, Hydrabad. Its renewal does not make it genuine. As regards other arguments that when the owner did not know nothing about the genuineness of the fake license, the liability of owner must be excluded. In support of this contention, the appellants have referred to judgment United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Lehru and others (supra) where it was observed as under:- “When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving license which on the fact of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. We find it rather strange the insurance companies expect owners to make 3 FAO No.4695 of 2005 enquiries with RTO’s which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to them is valid or not. Thus, where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently there would be no breach of section 149(2)(a)(ii). The insurance company would not then be absolved of liability. If ultimately turns out that the licence was fake the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and stil permitted that person to drive. More importantly even in such a cse the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. This is the law which has been laid down in Skandia’s Sohan Lal passi’s and Kamla’s case. We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and seen no reason to take a different view. On examination of the aforesaid judgment, it transpires that the appellant before he could sustain the plea of its exclusion from liability, the appellant was to lead evidence in order to establish that; (i) It had satisfied itself that the license was valid. (ii) It should have taken the competency test to drive the vehicle. The appellant corporation is a big organization to drive its vehicle from one corner to another corner of Punjab and India but it could not be expected from the corporation that it would not verify about the driving licenses of the drivers to whom it had been employing on such a sensitive job. In this case, appellant, Corporation did not examine any of its officials to say that it had believed the license of respondent No.5 to be correct as the same was genuine at the face of it and on their verification from the competent authority, he was found to be a competent driver. Notwithstanding the fact that appellant did not examine any person of his office, even the driver, 4 FAO No.4695 of 2005 respondent No.5 did not appear in the witness box to state that he believed that license issued to him was genuine and owners had employed him after taking his test. Resultantly, finding returned by the trial Court on issue no.7 are upheld. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. [ A.N.Jindal ] Judge 06.08.2009 sd 5