IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (MVA) 307 of 2002. Date of decision : 24.06.2008. Shri Sham Sunder ….Appellant Versus Smt.Ram Shree & Others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr.Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For respondents 1 & 2: Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. For Respondent No.3: Mr.Harish Behal, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. This appeal has been preferred by the owner of truck No. HP-20-8207 involved in the accident and the question whether the appellant is liable is the subject matter of this appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has urged that the finding on issue No. 4 as to whether the driver was possessed of a valid driving licence or not, as arrived at by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not correct. He submits that the Tribunal was in grave error in not considering the fact that the Insurance Company did not lead any clear and cogent 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 evidence to show that the licence had not been issued from Amritsar. His contention is that mere renewal of a fake licence will not render the licence invalid. While adjudicating issue No. 4, the learned Tribunal holds that Ex.RX, which is the driving licence has been issued from Hoshiarpur. The learned Tribunal notes that RW-3 Harjinder Singh, Clerk, D.T.O., Hoshiarpur has stated on oath that licence in question according to the records has been issued to one Jagdish Singh, son of Shri Asha Singh, resident of 217-R Model Town, Hoshiarpur on 21.2.91 and not in favour of driver Surinder Singh. Ex.RW- 3/A is the report made by the D.T.O., Hoshiarpur. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.Lehru and others, AIR 2003 SC 1292, the Supreme Court holds that prima facie if on a bare perusal of the licence, the owner is satisfied that it looks a genuine one, then he is not expected to make an inquiry from the office from where such licence is issued. The Court holds: “20. 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 licence which on the face 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 that Insurance Companies expect owners to make enquiries 3 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 it 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 still permitted that person to drive. More importantly even in such a case 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 see no reason to take a different view.” Admittedly, there is no statement on behalf of the owner to show that he was prima facie satisfied that the licence appeared to be genuine and that there was no cause for making any further inquiry. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. June 24, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.