IMPORTANT POINT
The owner of a vehicle must verify the driver's valid licence; failure to do so constitutes a breach of insurance policy terms, absolving the insurer of liability.

JUDGMENT :

JOHNSON JOHN, J.

The 2nd respondent in O.P.(MV) Nos. 285 of 2017 and 284 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirur filed the above appeals challenging the direction in the common award of the Tribunal permitting the 3rd respondent insurance company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle after payment to the petitioners.

2. The respective claim petitions are filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Muhammed Shafeeq and Hanees Mubaraq, who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 04.04.2016. At the time of occurrence, the deceased were travelling as rider and pillion rider in a motorcycle and a scorpio car driven by the 1st respondent from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the motorcycle and thereby, the rider and pillion rider sustained fatal injuries and subsequently, succumbed to the injuries, while undergoing treatment in the hospital.

3. Before the Tribunal, Exhibits A1 to A14 were marked from the side of the petitioners and Exhibits B1 and B2 from the side of the respondents.

4. After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. The Tribunal also found that the 1st respondent was not having a valid driving licence and therefore, there is violation of policy conditions and hence, pay and recovery was ordered.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company

6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal ought to have found that the owner of the vehicle is not in a position to verify the genuineness of the driving licence and since the appellant engaged the driver on satisfaction that he is competent to drive the vehicle, it cannot be held that there is violation of any policy conditions.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company pointed out that the appellant herein was the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal and that even though the 2nd respondent appeared through counsel, no written statement was filed before the Tribunal and therefore, in the absence of any pleadings, the contention now raised in the appeal that the appellant, owner of the vehicle, has no means to verify the genuineness of the driving licence and that he engaged the driver on satisfaction that the said driver was competent to drive the vehicle, is not sustainable.

8. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has no case that the driver engaged by him was having a valid driving licence at the time of occurrence. But, the contention is that absence of driving licence by itself is not a sufficient ground to record a finding that there is violation of policy conditions. The policy of insurance is marked as Exhibit B2. A perusal of Exhibit B2 would show that there is a specific condition that the person driving the vehicle should hold an effective driving licence.

9. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and others [(2003) 3 SCC 338], the Honourable Supreme Court held thus:

“20. When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. We find it rather strange that insurance companies expect owners to make enquiries with RTOs, which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to them is valid or not. Thus where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii). The insurance company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake, the