F.A.O. No.2847 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No.2847 of 2007 Date of Decision : 15.12.2008 Dharambir and another ....Appellants Versus Raj Singh & others. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.C.B.Kaushik, Advocate for the appellants. Mrs.Shamsher Kaur, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent No.4. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 8.1.2007 by which the liability to satisfy the award was fastened upon the appellants who are driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The reason for fastening the liability was that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence on the day when the accident took place. The licence being held by the driver was valid upto 2.12.2000. Thereafter it was renewed on 22.11.2003 upto 21.11.2006. The accident in question took place on 17.11.2003 implying thereby that on the date of the accident there was no driving licence being held by the driver of the offending vehicle. F.A.O. No.2847 of 2007 -2- The apex court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Kusum Rai and others 2006(4) S.C.C. 250 held as under :- “14. This Court in Swaran Singh, 2004(3) S.C.C. 297 clearly laid down that the liability of the Insurance Company vis-a-vis the owner would depend upon several factors. The owner would be liable for payment of compensation in a case where the driver was not having a licence at all. It was the obligation on the part of the owner to take adequate care to see that the driver had an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle. The question as regards the liability of the owner vis-a-vis the driver being not possessed of a valid licence was considered in Swaran Singh stating : (SCC pp.336-37, para 89) “89. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of the said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are : (a) motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller, and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in F.A.O. No.2847 of 2007 -3- sub-section (2) of Section 10. They are 'goods carriage', 'heavy goods vehicle', 'heavy passenger motor vehicle', 'invalid carriage', 'light motor vehicle', 'maxi-cab', 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger motor vehicle', 'motor- cab', 'motor cycle', 'omnibus', 'private service vehicle', 'semi trailer', 'tourist vehicle', 'tractor', 'trailer' and 'transport vehicle'. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal as a person possessing a driving licence for 'motorcycle without gear', (sic may be driving a vehicle) for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for 'light motor vehicle' is found to be driving a 'maxi-cab', 'motor-cab' or 'omnibus' for which he has no licence. In each case, on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence.” In view of the settled proposition of law, I am of the F.A.O. No.2847 of 2007 -4- opinion that there is no merit in the contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants who has contended that the liability could not have been fastened on him as in any eventuality there is no evidence to show that the accident was the direct fall out of the invalidity of the licence. I am afraid, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is entirely misplaced in view of the observations of the apex court. Dismissed. 15.12.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss