Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 6011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Nisha & Ors. - Respondents
MAC.APP. 49 of 2018 & CM APPL. 1228 of 2018 and MAC.APP. 64 of 2018
Decided On : 18-09-2023
Ms.Prerna Mehta, Advocate, for the Appellant.
None, for the Respondent.
IMPORTANT POINT
The owner's responsibility to verify driving skills, not the genuineness of the driving license, as emphasized by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:
Driving License - Validity and Verification - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 14(2) - Supreme Court judgments on owner's responsibility to verify driving license authenticity
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the Impugned Award due to the non-grant of the right to recover compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle, based on the validity of the driving license produced by the owner/driver of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driving license of the driver was verified by the Investigating Officer and was found to be genuine and valid at the time of the accident. The court also cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the owner's responsibility to verify driving skills, not the genuineness of the driving license.
Issues: Validity of the driving license and the owner's responsibility to verify its authenticity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the owner is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver, and once satisfied with the driver's competence, the owner is not required to further verify the license's genuineness.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the appellant was entitled to the return of the deposited statutory amount with interest.
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral) - These appeals have been filed by the appellant(s) challenging the Award dated 07.11.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-01, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MACT No.476963 and 476283 of 2016. As common issues arise in the appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The limited challenge of the appellant to the Impugned Award is on the account of non-grant of a right to the appellant to recover the compensation paid to the claimants from the owner of the offending vehicle, that is, Truck bearing HP-12D-3935, that is, the respondent no.5 in MAC APP 49 of 2018 and the respondent no.3 in MAC APP 64/2018.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driving license produced by the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle was one purportedly issued by the Government of Nagaland. She submits that in terms of a Public Information no.TC-23/MV/2007(PT-1) dated 01.08.2014 issued by the Government of Nagaland, it had been directed that all driving license holders having a driving license in the form of a booklet or any manual format, other than a smart card, must report the same to the Transport Office for the purpose of digitizing their data and for issuance of a smart card. It was further stipulated that any driving license other than one in the form of a smart card shall be treated as cancelled with effect from 01.12.2014.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the driving license produced by the driver/owner of the offending vehicle was not in the form of a smart card, the same was not to be treated as valid on the date of the accident, which was 30.09.2015.
5. She further submits that the driving license produced by the driver/owner of the offending vehicle also did not reflect the date of expiry of the endorsement thereon with respect to its validity for driving a heavy motor vehicle. She submits that the same is a mandatory requirement in terms of Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. She submits that in the absence thereof, the driving license produced by the owner/driver of the offending vehicle, on the face of it, was invalid and the appellant should have been granted a right to recover the compensation paid to the claimants from the owner of the offending vehicle.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, however, find no merit in the same.
7. Before adverting to the challenge of the appellant, I would reproduce the findings of the learned Tribunal on the issue raised in the present appeals, as under:
"44. It has to be seen that IO of the case has filed on record the verification report of the aforesaid DL of the respondent no.1 which specifically states that the aforesaid DL of respondent No.1 was valid and the same was issued on 30.11.2009 and the same was valid upto 29.11.2015. The said letter issued by Nagaland Transport Authority which has been placed on record by the IO is dated 15.10.2015. The date of accident is 30.09.2015. It has to be seen that in the aforesaid letter of the Nagaland Transport Authority which has been relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the Insurance company, neither the date of notification/order passed by the Transport Commissioner has been mentioned nor it has been mentioned as to when the aforesaid orders came into operation. The IO has not been examined by the respondent no.3. As such, to my mind, the verification of the DL of the respondent no.1 carried on by the IO has not been challenged. The report relied upon by the respondent No.3 merely states about the invalidity of the said DL. The said report does not states that the DL was fake, forged or fabricated.
45. In view of the report filed by the IO about the authenticity of the DL, to my mind, the submission of ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company to the effect that the aforesaid DL was i
