The owner of a vehicle can be held liable for a motor accident if the driver does not possess a valid license at the time of the accident.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by New India Assurance Company Ltd. , respondent No. 3, against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, dated 4. 5. 1983. The accident was caused by motor cycle No. DHT 653 in which the claimant Suresh Mohan Chopra suffered fracture of right arm and was required to be hospitalised. He was admitted in Ganga Ram Hospital and operated there. The claimant claimed the compensation of Rs. 30,000. 00. Opposing the claim petition the insurance company stated that respondent No. 1 who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident did not possess the valid licence and the insurance company was, therefore, not liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No. 1, the driver and respondent No. 2, the owner, filed their written statements but thereafter absented from the proceedings and they were proceeded ex parte by the Tribunal.

( 2 ) ON going through the evidence the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle in question and that the claimant had suffered injuries, as mentioned above, because of the accident. The Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 30. 000. 00.

( 3 ) NEITHER the driver nor the owner has filed any appeal in this court. Only the insurance company has preferred this appeal. The driver of the vehicle, Lakhi Ram Prabhu Dayal, was working as a mechanic in the service station in Karol Bagh where the offending vehicle was given for repairs. The mechanic who caused the accident stated in his cross-examination that he used to take the offending vehicle for a trial with the permission of respondent No. 2, i. e. , the owner and that on the date of accident the owner had given the vehicle for trial. In his examination- in-chief he stated that when the accident took place he was holding a driving licence which was issued to him by the Transport Authority, Rajpur Road in 1977. He did not remember the number of the licence. He further stated that he destroyed the licence after the date of expiry. The insurance company also summoned the Transport Authority. The witness for the Transport Authority stated that for want of definite particulars about the licence they were unable to trace the same. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the insurance company had failed to establish that the driver was not holding any licence at the time of the accident. On consideration of the evidence on record I find that the Tribunal s conclusion is wrong and untenable in law.

( 4 ) IT is no doubt that the primary burden of proof was on the insurance company to establish that the driver was not holding a licence at the time of the accident, but that burden was more than adequately discharged by the insurance company, by summoning the driver and also a witness from the Transport Authority. The story of the driver- mechanic is on the face of it unbelievable. A licence is never destroyed after its expiry and in the normal course it is renewed. Particularly for a person who is working as a mechanic it cannot be imagined how the licence was destroyed after its expiry. The witness cannot be trusted on the story of destruction of licence. The witness also did not give the number of licence. That was the difficulty for the insurance company in furnishing particulars to the Transport Authority. On the evidence on record I hold that the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold any licence at the time of the accident. In his cross-examination by the owner of the vehicle he has stated that he was authorised by the owner to take the vehicle on trial. It is an admitted fact that during the course of trial run the accident had taken place. The driver was acting as the agent of the owner and, therefore, respondent No. 2 the owner was liable in law for the accident. The driver did not hold any licence and, therefore, respondent No. 3, insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 2, the owner of the v