1 FAO NO. 2334 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 2334 of 2009 Date of order: 19.09.2011 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Smt. Bohti Devi and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent no.1. Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal brought by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., respondent no. 3 before learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short 'the Tribunal') against the award dated 23.01.2009 passed by the Tribunal under the provisions of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short the Act). The short point involved for decision in this appeal is as to whether the driver i.e. respondent no.1 was not holding any effective driving licence for driving the vehicle on the date of accident i.e. 24.07.2007. The brief facts are as under:- 2 FAO NO. 2334 of 2009 On 24.07.2007 at about 12.40 PM Bhale Ram, deceased was going to Narwana from his village Dumerkhan on his motorcycle. When he crossed Hariyal Chowk, Narwana, a truck/tralla bearing registration no.HR 56C/0097 came from the side of Uklana and hat hit Bhale Ram, as a result of which, he fell down and suffered injuries. Bhale Ram was shifted to General Hospital, Narwana, where he died on account of those injuries. The age of the deceased is claimed to be 60 years and it is alleged that he was earning Rs.8000/- per month from pension and dairy farming. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents. Pleading that respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, respondent no.3 has averred that the vehicle was being plied in contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 05.03.2008:- “1- Whether Bhale Ram son of Ram Kishan died in a road side accident due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR 56C/0097 by respondent no.1, as alleged ?OPP 2- Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, as alleged ?OPR4 3- Whether the vehicle in question was being driven by in contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged ?OPR-4 3 FAO NO. 2334 of 2009 4- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom ?OPP 5- Relief” The parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion under issues no. 2 and 3 that the insurance company has failed to prove that the driver had not filed application for renewal of the licence before expiry of 30 days of the date of expiry of his licence. In view of this finding, it has been held that the insurance company has failed to prove any violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Consequently, the award has been passed in a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 7- 1/2% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization of the award money. Aggrieved by the award aforesaid, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. Manvinder Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arihant Jain, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the driving licence of respondent no.1 was renewed on 15.6.2006 for a period upto 14.06.2007. According to him, the driving licence has been renewed thereafter on 7.12.2007. He has submitted that since the accident in question took place on 24.7.2007, there is nothing on record to prove that the driving licence was applied to be renewed within 30 days of its expiry 4 FAO NO. 2334 of 2009 and that renewal of the same had validated the same from the date of expiry of the licence. Learned counsel for the appellant has also cited before me a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Company Limited and others (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 165 . The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down in para no.18 of the judgment as under:- “It is beyond any doubt or dispute that only in the event an application for renewal of licence is filed within a period of 30 days from the date of expiry thereof, the same would be renewed automatically which means that even if an accident had taken place within the aforementioned period, the driver may be held to be possessing a valid licence. The proviso appended to sub-section (1) of section 15, however, clearly states that the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal in the event the application for renewal of a licence is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry. It is, therefore, evident that as on renewal of the licence on such terms and driver of the vehicle cannot be said to be holding a valid licence, the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured.” Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in these circumstances, the insurance company may although be initially burdened with the responsibility to pay the compensation, yet recovery rights should be granted to it. 5 FAO NO. 2334 of 2009 Learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 has submitted that the onus to prove that the insurer was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of the policies regarding driving of the vehicle by duly licenced driver, was upon the insurer. According to him, the insurer has failed to lead evidence about the date on which the driver applied for renewal of the driving licence. He has further submitted that the insurer did not call any employee of the licensing authority to prove the fact that respondent no.1 applied for renewal of driving licence more than 30 days after the date of expiry of the licence. He has, thus, submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that the driver, who had a valid driving licence upto 14.6.2007, did not apply for renewal of the same within 30 days of its expiry. Under section 15 of the Act, a licensing authority would renew a driving licence with effect from the date of its expiry if the application for renewal of the same has been made within 30 days of its expiry. If an application is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry , the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. The driving licence in this case has been renewed on 7.12.2007. There is no evidence to prove as to from which date it was renewed. There is also no evidence to prove that the licence was applied to be renewed after a period of 30 days from the date of expiry of the driving licence. 6 FAO NO. 2334 of 2009 In these circumstances, the insurer seems to have clearly failed to discharge the onus placed on it to prove that the insured has failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of the policy regarding handing over the vehicle to duly licensed person. Learned Tribunal has been fully justified in holding that the insurer has failed to prove any violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, has rightly saddled the appellant with the liability to pay the compensation. No recovery rights could be given to the insurance company against the owner and driver of the insurance company paying the award money. For all these reasons, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned award. The appeal is consequently dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.09.2011 dinesh