The insurance company must prove the wilful breach on the part of the vehicle owner, and the mere fact of the driving license being fake does not absolve the insurer from liability.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present group of First Appeals challenges the common judgment passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) at Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar on 21.02.2019 in fourteen group of matters being Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of 2014, 24, 30 to 34 of 2016, 46 and 47 of 2015, which were having original old M.A.C.P. numbers registered in the year 2011.

2. The Insurance Company inter alia has raised the ground that the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding valid and effective license, and as per the evidence on record confirmed by the concerned R.T.O., produced at Exh.54 to 60, the license so produced on record is fake.

3. Advocate Mr. Maulik Shelat for the Insurance Company submits that it is the bounden duty of the owner of the vehicle to prove on record that he had verified the license of his driver, and thereby had permitted him to ply the vehicle. In absence of any such evidence on record, an adverse inference is required to be drawn that no such exercise was undertaken by the owner of the vehicle.

3.1 Advocate Mr. Shelat submitted that necessary evidence was brought on record by way of reply under R.T.I. from the R.T.O., from which it transpired that the license relied upon was fake.

4. Countering the argument, Advocate Mr. Paresh M.Darji for the claimants relying on the judgment of IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Geeta Devi and Ors., passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.19992 of 2023 on October 30, 2023, submitted that now it is settled that if in case the owner was not aware of the license being fake per se the fact that the driving license was found to be fake does not absolve the insurer. Further, Advocate Mr. Dargi submitted that the insurance company has not examined the truck driver, nor has examined the R.T.O. Officer to prove the fact on record that license produced was fake.

5. Advocate Mr. Nishit A.Bhalodi has adopted the argument of Advocate Mr. Paresh M.Darji.

6. The facts of vehicular accident, as was noted by the Tribunal had taken place between Dalu (Camper) bearing Registration No.GJ-2-Y-5734 and the Truck bearing Registration No.RJ-27-G4142, on 07.07.2011. The Motor Accident Claim Petitions were filed, where few of them were the heirs of the deceased, while certain applications were by the injured claimants. M.A.C.P. Nos.5 and 9 of 2014 are the fatal matters by the heirs of the deceased, while rest are by the injured claimants.

7. The only issue, now as per the grounds in the appeals and the submissions raised by the learned advocates, require to be dealt, is about the license of the driver of truck, which was urged by the insurance company as being fake. The learned Tribunal after having considered the evidence on record had held driver of the truck sole negligent for the accident. The Truck was insured with the present appellant.

7.1 The Tribunal has referred to Exh.52, 53, 55 and 56 as the copy of the R.T.I. Application to Fatehapur R.T.O. with the speed post slip, a copy of reply of R.T.O. at Exh.54 and Exh.57, copy of appeal under R.T.I. at Exh.58 and 59, and reply of the R.T.O. at Exh.60. The learned Tribunal has not discussed the evidence produced by the insurance company in connection with reply of the R.T.O.; however, the only observation which could be seen in context of the license in paragraph-22 of the judgment is to the effect that the knowledge of the owner regarding the driver holding the valid and effective license, is not proved on record; hence, argument of the learned Advocate of the insurance company was not found tenable.

8. In Geeta Devi and Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was seized of the matter, where the Tribunal had found the driver of the tempo holding a fake driving license, thus, opined that the insurance company would not be liable to pay the compensation; hence, directed the insurance company to deposit the awarded amount with the liberty to recover from the owner of the tempo. Aggrieved by the f