IMPORTANT POINT
The owner's responsibility is to verify the driving skills of the driver and not to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Aggrieved against award dated 09.09.2011, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghumarwin, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 37 of 2006, the insurer has filed the instant appeal.

2. Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘claimant’) had filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘The Act’) impleading the owner, driver and insurer as party respondents. Respondents No. 2 and 3 herein, are the owner and driver, respectively and shall hereafter referred by the same status. The insurer is the appellant before this Court.

3. The claimant had claimed compensation on the premise that he had suffered multiple injuries on his person in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 5. 06.2006 at Upperli Bhager, District Bilaspur, H.P. It was alleged that the appellant was standing in front of the shop alongwith vehicle (Jeep No. HP-24-0121). At about 12:00 noon, Truck No. HP-10-1817, came from Ghumarwin side and hit the appellant. The cause of accident was attributed to the rash and negligent driving of the driver.

4. The claim was resisted by all the respondents. The owner and driver denied the cause of accident to be rash and negligent driving of the driver. Rather, it was alleged that the appellant himself was negligent.

5. The insurer contested the petition on various grounds. One of the objections was that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident.

6. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 in an accident which took place on 05.06.2006 involving the truck bearing No. HP-10-1817? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what extent? OPP.

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable?OPR-1

4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder? OPR

5. Whether the accident was result of contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 as alleged?OPR-3

6. Whether the respondent was not having valid and effective driving licence?OPR-3

7. Whether the vehicle was being driven without any valid R.C. fitness and route permit as alleged? OPR-3.

8. Relief.

Issues No. 1 and 2 were decided in affirmative. All other issues were decided in negative. The award of Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition was passed in favour of the claimant. Respondents were held liable to pay the award amount with specific directions to the insurer to indemnify the owner by satisfying the award.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer has confined his argument to the extent that despite proof of the fact that the driver did not have valid driving license on the date of accident, learned Tribunal has fastened the liability on the insurer.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer referred to the deposition of RW-3 Sh. Susheel Kumar, an official from the office of R & LA, Hamirpur, in support of his contention. RW-3 had deposed that the driver had submitted his license for renewal on 06.06.2006 and on the same day it was renewed. In his cross-examination, this witness also deposed that the license held by the driver expired on 23.04.2006.

10. The accident had taken place on 05.06.2006. Thus, on facts, it is proved that the license held by the driver had expired on 23.04.2006 and was renewed on 06.06.2006, on the basis of renewal application submitted on the same day i.e. 06.06.2006. The inference is that on the date of accident, the driving license of the driver was not valid.

11. The owner of the vehicle had also stepped into witness box as RW-1. He deposed that the driver was having a valid driving license, when he was employed by the owner. As per this witness, due care and diligence had been used while