Vehicle owner held jointly liable with driver for insurer's 50% recovery due to fake driving licence, despite owner's due diligence, as tribunal award targeted all respondents.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Executing Court, in terms whereof, in the execution preferred by the Insurance Company, the Executing Court has ordered as under:-

“As per para No.29 the order of Tribunal, the insurance company has been liberty to recover 50% of the amount paid to the petitioner from the respondents and the reason for this recovery of 50% is given by the Tribunal to be a fake driving licence of respondent No.1 Surinder Singh. Surinder Singh was driving the vehicle of respondent No.1 and shared the relationship of master and servant. As Surinder was acting on behalf of the owner by driving the vehicle of the owner, but it was bound in duty of owner to have checked the driving licence before keeping him as driver on the truck. In the view of the circumstances, both driver and owner are jointly and severally are liable to make this 50% of the total amount to the petitioner. Accordingly, the objection is disposed of. Let warrant of attachment be issued in favour of respondent No.1 on filing particulars within a week and report be called on or before 5.1.2018.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that a claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by claimant Mansukh against the three respondents. These three respondents were Surinder Singh, the driver of the vehicle, Sardar Surinder Singh, the present petitioner, who was the owner of the vehicle and National Insurance Company. The facts, which led to the filing of the claim petition were that according to the claimant on the fateful day i.e., on 24.05.2005, when the claimant was going to Shahpur and when he reached near Hanuman Mandir in the main Shahpur Bazar, he was hit by a vehicle bearing registration number HP-38-A-8959, which was being driven by Surinder Singh in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, as a result whereof, the claimant suffered injuries.

3. To cut the story short, on account of this incident, compensation to the tune of Rs.6 lac was claimed by the claimant.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties before the learned Tribunal, the following four issues were framed:-

1. “Whether the respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle HP-38-A-8959 in a rash and negligent manner on the road on 24.05.2005 at Shahpur and had struck it against the petitioner thereby causing grievous injuries to him? OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle as alleged? OPR3

4. Whether respondents No.1 and 2 were plying the offending vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as alleged? OPR3.”

5. On the strength of the evidence, which was led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues were decided as under:-

6. The claim petition was decided by the learned Tribunal, in the following terms:-

“In view of my findings on issues above, the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs against the respondents. However as the vehicle was insured the respondent no.3, so it will indemnify the entire compensation amount