The main legal point established in the judgment is that the owner's satisfaction with the driver's competence to drive the vehicle shifts the onus to the Insurance Company to prove any breach of the insurance policy, and the owner is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driver's license.

ORDER :

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

Leave granted.

1. The owner of the truck is in appeal before this Court challenging the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal¹[For short, the ‘Tribunal’] on 15.01.2019, affirmed by the High Court vide the order impugned in the present appeal and granting liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the awarded amount from the appellant along with up-to-date interest by way of appropriate proceedings.

2. The brief facts are that the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident on 27.04.2015. The appellant appeared as R2W1. He deposed in his affidavit Ex. R2W1/A that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily. In cross-examination, he stated that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He reaffirmed in the cross-examination that he had taken driving test of the driver before his employment. He produced his driving license as Ex. R2W1/3. Though he deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Courts have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount from the owner.

3. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Lehru & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 338 as also three-Judge Bench judgment reported as National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 that the owner has no mean to verify the genuineness of driving license produced before him, provided that the owner finds the driver is competent to drive the vehicle. Hence, once the appellant has deposed that he had taken test of the driver before employing him, he has taken sufficient precaution before employment. Therefore, there could not be any direction to recover the amount from the appellant.

4. The record of the Tribunal was requisitioned. A perusal thereof shows that the claimants have produced a driving licence of the driver before the Tribunal. The said driving licence is available at page 502 of the paper book. The genuineness of the said licence was investigated and in the report Ex. R3W2/D, the same was found to be not issued by the Licensing Authority Mandi in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

5. Thus, it was the claimant alone who relied upon the license issued by Licensing Authority Mandi. The same was not found to be genuine. The statement of the owner, that the license was from Nagaland is without any supporting documents and is thus meaning less. The fact remains, having appointing driver after taking test, the appellant was not expected to make enquiries from the licensing authority as to whether driving license shown to him is valid or not.

6. If the owner has stated that driver had produced the driving license from Nagaland but no such license was produced on record, it is obviously a mistake on the part of the owner. However, such aspect cannot be used to grant liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner when the driving license actually produced by the claimant themselves was from Una, Himachal Pradesh. It may be stated that falsus inuno, falsusinomnibusis not the principle applicable in India. Therefore, even if a part of the statement that the driver has produced the license from Nagaland is not correct, it is wholly inconsequential.

7. To appreciate the contention of the appellant, the observations of this Court in Lehru (supra) have been reproduced as under:

“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 th