RAKESH KUMAR & ETC. ETC. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. &  ORS. ETC. ETC.
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 237, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 237 
RAKESH KUMAR & ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & 
ORS. ETC. ETC. 
( C ivi I Appeal Nos.6199-6202 of 2016) 
JULY13,2016 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 - Compensation - Fatal 
accident - Award of compensation by Tribunal - Insurer was held 
liable to pay compensation as the driver of the offending vehicle 
was holding a valid and effective driving licence - High Court 
accepted the insurer s appeal and exonerated the insurer on the 
ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a 
valid licence to drive the vehicle - Appeal by owner - Held: The 
driver of the offending vehicle proved his driving licence in his 
evidence and the insurer failed to adduce any evidence to prove 
that the driving licence was either fake or invalid - Therefore, insurer 
was liable to pay the compensation. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The driver of the offending vehicle proved his 
driving license in his evidence. Second, when the license was 
proved, the Insurance Company did not raise any objection 
about its admissibility or manner of proving. Third, even if any 
objection had been raised, it would have had no merit because it 
has come on record that the original driving license was filed by 
the driver in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First class in a 
criminal case arising out of the same accident. Fourth, in any 
event, once the license was proved by the driver and marked
in 
evidence and without there being any objection by the Insurance 
Company, the Insurance Company had no right to raise any 
objection about the admissibility and manner of proving of the 
license at a later stage. Lastly, the Insurance Company failed to 
adduce any evidence to prove that the driving license was either 
fake or invalid for some reason. Impugned order in so far as it 
relates to exonerating of the Insurance Company from the 
237 
237 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
238 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
liability to pay the compensation is set aside and the Insurance 
Company (Respondent No.l) is held liable to pay 
the 
compensation awarded by the Tribunal and enhanced by the 
High Court jointly and severally along with the driver and 
owner of the offending vehicle. [Paras 20, 23] [241-F-H, 242-DJ 
B 
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla 
& Ors. 2007 (6) SCR 780 : (2007) 13 SCC 476 - relied 
on. 
c 
Case Law Reference 
2007 (6) SCR 780 
relied on 
Para 20 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6199-
6202 of20 I 6. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.05.2014 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAQ Nos. 6935 of201 I, 6937 
D . of201l,6977 of201Iand907 of2012 (O&M)., 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A. Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, Shree Pal Singh, Ad vs. for the Appellant. 
A . K. De, Debasis Misra, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals" are filed against the common final judgment and 
order dated 22.05.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 
at Chandigarh in F.A.O. Nos. 6935, 6937, 6977of2011 and 907of2012 
(O&M) wherein the High Court partly allowed the appeals of the 
Insurance Company and reversed the award dated 13.09.2011 of the 
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala in MACT Case Nos. 97, I 09 
of 2008 and 28 of 2009 and exonerated the Insurance Company from 
the liability arising out of the
accident. 
3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need 
mention in brief to appreciate the short controversy involved in the 
appeals. 
4. On 16.09.2008, Sheo Ram, Madan Mohan, and Mohindro Devi 
along with others were traveling in a three wheeler bearing Registration 
No. PH-I I TC-468 from Naraingarh to Shahzadpur. Madan Mohan was 
driving the three wheeler on the left side of the road. At about I 0.30
RAKESH KUMAR v. UNlTED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY 
239 
LTD. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
•. 
a.m., when the three wheeler reached near Bus stop of Village Bharanpur 
on Naraingarh Shahzadpur Road, a truck bearing Registration No. HR-
37-C-7937, which came from the opposite side, struck the three wheeler. 
Though its driver Madan Mohan tried to avoid the accident by taking his 
vehicle on the extreme left side of the road, yet all the occupants of the 
three wheeler suffered multiple injuries. The injured were taken to Civil 
Hospital, Naraingarh in private vehicles. Thereafter, Sheo Ram was 
referred to PGI Chandigarh where he succumbed to his injuries. A 
criminal case bearing FIR No. 88 dated 16.09 .2008 was registered against 
Jaipal, driver of Truck No. HR-37-C-7937 at the Police Station, 
Shahzadpur, District Ambala for the commission of offence punishable 
under Sections 279/337/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter 
referred to as "the Code"). Madan Mohan, another injured, who was 
driver of the three wheeler also died later at Civil Hospital, Narain_garh. 
Smt. Mohindro Devi, the third injured, also suffered a number of injuries 
in the accident and was shifted to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh but later 
she also died. 
5. The legal representatives ofSheo Ram filed claim petition being 
MACT Case No. 97/2008, the legal representatives of Madan Mohan 
filed claim petition being MACT Case No. I 09 of 2008 and legal 
representatives ofMohindro Devi filed claim
petition being MACT Case 
No. 28 of 2009 before the MACT (in short "the Tribunal"), Ambala 
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the owner, 
driver and insurer of offending vehicle, i.e., HR-37-C-7937 claiming 
compensation for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-, Rs.20;00,000/-and 
Rs. I O,oo;ooO/- respectively. 
6. It was contested by the non-applicants. One of the defence of 
Insurance Company (R-3 _therein) was that the driver of the offending 
vehicle had no valid and effective license and hence no liability can be 
fastened on the Insurance Company. 
7. The Tribunal, vide common award dated 13.09.2011, allowed 
the petitions filed by the claimants and awarded a sum ofRs.6,05,000/-
in MACT Case No. 97/2008, Rs.4,56,8000/- in MACT Case No.109 of 
2008 and Rs.51,448/- in MACT Case No.28 of2009. It was, inter alia, 
held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation as the 
driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving 
license. It was also held that the Insurance Company failed to adduce 
any evidence to prove to the contrary. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
.E 
F 
G 
H
240 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
8. Challenging the said order, the Insurance Company filed FAO 
Nos~ 6935, 6937 and 6977/2011 an<l the claimants filed FAO Nos. 906 
iind 907of2012 seeking enhancement of the compensation. 
9. By impugned judgment dated 22.05.2014, the High Court reversed 
the award of the Tribunal in part in the appeals filed by the Insurance 
·Company and held that since the driver of the offending vehicle did not 
possess-a valid license to drive the vehicle because he failed to file the 
original one and filed its photocopy, the Insurance Company cannot be 
held liable to pay the awarded sum. In other words, the High Court held 
that the driving license was not properly proved and hence it cannot be 
held that the driver was having a valid driving license. In this view of the 
matter, the Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability from 
paying the compensation. However, the Insurance Company was directed 
to pay the awarded sum to the claimants first and then to recover the 
awarded sum from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle on the 
principle of 'pay and recover'. 
I 0. Challenging the said order, the owner has filed these appeals by 
way of special leave before this Court. 
11. A short question that arises for consideration in these appeals is 
whether the High Court was justified in exonerating the Insurance 
Company from the liability on the ground that the driver of the offending 
vehicle did
not possess valid license? 
12. Heard Mr. A. Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant and 
Mr. A.K. De, learned counsel for respondent No. I. 
13. Submission of Mr. A. Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant, 
while attacking the impugned order was essentially two-fold. 
14. In the first place, learned counsel urged that the High Court 
erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability arising 
out of the accident. He submitted that the Tribunal having rightly held 
that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the 
claimants as the driver of offending vehicle was having a val id driving 
license at the time of accident and that the vehicle in question was 
admittedly insured with the insurance company, there was no justifiable 
reason for the High Court to have reversed the finding of the Tribunal 
and exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability. 
15. In the second place, learned counsel urged that the High Court
RAKESH KUMAR v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY 
241 
LTD. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
failed to see that the driver of the offending vehicle had filed the photo 
copy of his driving license, which was also proved (Exhibit-R I) by him 
without there being any objection of the Insurance Company. Learned 
counsel further pointed out that apart from this, the Insurance Company 
failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the license held by the driver 
was fake or not genuine etc. 
16. Learned counsel urged that the finding of the High Court is, 
therefore, not legally sustainable and hence deserves to be set aside and 
that of the Tribunal on this issue is liable to be restored. 
A 
B 
17. In reply, learned counsel for respondent No. I (Insurance 
Company) supported the reasoning of the High Court and contended c 
that the impugned order should be upheld calling no interference therein. 
I 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal 
of the record of the case, we are inclined to accept the submissions 
urged by the learned counsel for the appellant as in our opinion, they 
deserve acceptance. 
D 
19. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that 
the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving license at 
the time of accident and that the Insurance Company failed to adduce 
any evidence to prove otherwise. This finding of the Tribunal, in our 
view, should not have been set aside by the High Court for the following 
E
reasons: 
20. First, the driver of the offending vehicle (N.A.-2) proved his 
driving license (Exhibit-RI) in his evidence. Second, when the license 
was proved, the Insurance Company did not raise any objection about 
its admissibility or manner of proving. Third, even ifany objection had 
been raised, it would have had no merit because it has come on record 
that the original driving license was filed by the driver in the Court of 
Judicial Magistrate First class, Naraingarh in a criminal case arising out 
of the same accident. Fourth, in any event, once the license was proved 
by the driver and marked in evidence and without there being any 
objection by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company had no 
right to raise any objection about the admissibility and manner of proving 
of the license at a later stage (See Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 
Vs. Premlata Shukla & Ors., (2007) 13 SCC 476) and lastly, the 
Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the 
driving license (Ex.RI) was either fake or invalid for some reason. 
F 
G 
H
242 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
21. In the light of foregoing reasons, we are of the considered 
opinion that the High court was not right in reversing the finding of the 
Tribunal. Indeed, the High Court should have taken note of these reasons 
which, in our view, were germane for deciding the issue ofliability of the 
Insurance Company arising out of the accident. 
22. We, therefore, find no good ground to concur with the finding 
of the High Court. Thus while reversing the finding, we hold that the 
driverofthe offending vehicle was holding a valid driving license (Exhibit-
R I) at the time of accident and since the Insurance Company failed to 
prove otherwise, it was liable to pay the compensation awarded by the 
Tribunal and enhanced by the High Court. 
23. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals filed by the insured 
(owner of'the offending vehicle) succeed and are allowed. Impugned 
order in so far as it relates to exonerating of the Insurance Company 
from the liability to pay the compensation is set aside and the Insurance 
Company (Respondent No. I) is held liable to pay the compensation 
awarded by the Tribunal and enhanced by the High Court jointly and 
severally along with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 
24. No costs. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeals allo" ed.