The judgment established that the owner's satisfaction with the driver's competence does not absolve the insurance company from liability unless it can prove that the owner was aware of the fake license and still permitted the driver to drive.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging the Awards dated 30.03.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North-West District, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MACT Petition Nos.84/2009, titled Amrit Garg v. Bhira & Ors., 85/2009, titled Vimla Devi & Ors. v. Bhira & Ors., and 86/2009, titled Vimla Devi v. Bhira & Ors., respectively.

2. By the Impugned Awards, the learned Tribunal, while awarding compensation in favour of the Claimants, has directed that the same shall be paid by the Insurance Company, who shall then have a right to recover the same from the appellants herein, that is the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, that is, truck bearing no.HR-56D- 0135. The said right has been granted to the Insurance Company as the appellants had remained ex-parte before the learned Tribunal, and in spite of the Insurance Company serving a notice under Order XII Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 calling upon the appellants to produce the valid permit qua offending vehicle and the driving licence of the driver, had failed to produce the same before the Insurance Company or before the learned Tribunal.

3. The appellants are aggrieved of the right granted to the Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount awarded to the claimants, from the appellants.

4. The appellants contend that the appellant no.1 was holding a valid permit for the offending vehicle, while the appellant no.2 was holding a valid driving licence.

5. This Court, vide its order dated 15.10.2018, inter-alia allowed the applications, being CM No.26544/2018 in MAC APP.606/2018, CM No.26693/2018 in MAC APP.613/2018 & CM No.26819/2018 in MAC APP.626/2018, respectively, filed by the appellants to produce additional evidence in form of the Permit of the offending vehicle and the licence of the driver, that is, the appellant no.2 herein. Notice was directed to be issued to the witnesses, that is, from the Regional Transport Authority, to depose in respect of the permit of the offending vehicle, and to the Licensing Authority to depose about the licence produced by the appellants alongwith their appeals before this Court.

6. Pursuant to the above orders, statement of Mr. Subhash, the Transport Sub-Inspector (TSI), Regional Transport Authority, Jind, Haryana, was recorded on 11.01.2019. He duly proved that the appellant no.1 was holding a valid Permit for the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident, that is, 24.03.2007.

7. Statement of Mr.Limatangit, Upper Divisional Assistant, Office of District Transport Office at Wokha, Nagaland, was also recorded on 05.02.2020. He stated that as per records of the Licencing Authority, the purported licence, relied upon by the appellants, had not been issued by the said authority and, in fact, the purported licence claims itself to have been issued on 13.04.2003, which was a Sunday and was a holiday and, therefore, there was no question of the said licence being issued on that day.

8. Faced with the above development and evidence wherein the licence produced by the appellants has been found to be fake, the learned counsel for the appellants now contends that the liability to pay the compensation still cannot be fastened on the appellant no.1 inasmuch as the appellant no.1 had done his due diligence by looking at the driving licence produced by the appellant no.2 and taking his driving test.

9. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and Ors., (2003)3 SCC 338; and Rishi Pal Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., (Judgment dated 26.07.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.4919 of 2022), the learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is for the Insurance Company to prove that the appellant no.1, owner of the offending vehicle, had not conducted due diligence to test the veracity of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehic