Insurance companies must prove insured negligence or breach for recovery claims involving fake driving licenses; mere existence of a fake license is insufficient to establish liability.

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The appellant is the owner of a truck, involved in an accident in which nine persons lost their lives and two sustained injuries; passengers in another vehicle, a Matador van. The appeal is against the “pay and recovery” directions granted to the insurance company which had insured the truck. The breach complained of and found in favour of the insurance company by the High Court was of the driver of the offending vehicle having produced a fake driving licence. The High Court was considering also the quantum appeals in which some modifications were made, with which we are not concerned. The insurance companies; both of the truck and the Matador van; found to be compositely negligent, apportioned at the rate of 75:25, had paid the compensation to the claimants.

2. Mr. Gopal Shankaranarayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal despite having noticed the two driving licences produced directed the insurance company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, which is perfectly in order looking at the binding precedents. The High Court has gone on surmises and conjectures in presuming that the owner of the vehicle, the appellant herein, had colluded with its driver to obtain a fake licence based on a register produced from the office of the District Transport Officer, Gurdaspur, which by reason of many interpolations made therein could not have been relied upon. The testimony of the witness, a Clerk from the office of DTO was against the certificate issued by the very same office, which had also indicated that the driving licence issued was later renewed.

3. The High Court had also observed that the driving licence seized from the driver of the vehicle, at the accident spot, was a different one and also proved to have been not issued from the office of RTO, Alwar. The same was produced by the Clerk of the record room in Tis Hazari Court, Delhi with the specific statement in the deposition that it was seized by them. The Tribunal had specifically noticed that the Clerk of the record room or the Court staff could not have made any such seizure. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions of this Court in United India Insurance Company vs. Lehru and Others , (2003) 3 SCC 338, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh , (2004) 3 SCC 297, Pepsu RTC vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2013) 10 SCC 217 and IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Geeta Devi , 2023 SCC Online SC 1398.

4. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-insurance company pointed out that both the licences produced; by the police and that produced by the owner, were found to be fake. The registered owner of the truck, hence, can be safely found to have been negligent while entrusting the vehicle to the driver. It is vehemently contended that unlike the usual practice of the driver producing the driving licence, here, the owner’s representative had produced it before the Tribunal which clearly indicates a collusion. The driver was not examined before the Tribunal. The Clerks of both DTO Gurdaspur and RTO Alwar had deposed that the licences said to have been issued from their office respectively R1W1/1 and A2 were not actually issued from the said offices. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the finding of the High Court and the insurance company is definitely entitled to recover the amounts from the appellant-owner of the truck.

5. Suffice it to notice that the accident occurred on 26.01.1993 at 02:00 am at an intersection when the two vehicles, a truck and the Matador van carryin