The owner of a vehicle is not liable for damages if they reasonably believed the driver's license was valid, and the burden of proof lies with the Insurance Company to demonstrate otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant had earlier filed an appeal against the award dated 30.07.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short the "Tribunal‟) in claim petition titled “Mst. Gulshan Afroz vs. Dharam Pal and others and Mohd. Sadiq Dar vs. Dharampal and others” which was dismissed by the Court vide judgment dated 06.12.2016.

2. The appellant being aggrieved of the same preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India set-aside the judgment dated 06.12.2016 vide order dated 10.05.2024 passed in SLP No. 1392-1393/2018 and remanded the matter back to the High Court. This is how this appeal has come up for consideration afresh before this Court.

3. In fact, this case has a chequered history, as earlier the learned Tribunal vide award dated 08.05.1995 directed the respondent No. 1 to satisfy the award. The respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal and the matter came to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal vide order dated 22.11.2002 to determine the liability of owner and driver, as it was contended by the respondent No.1 that the license of the driver was fake. The learned Tribunal vide its award dated 30.07.2008 came to the conclusion that the driving license of the driver driving the offending vehicle was fake and as the awarded amount was already deposited by the respondent No. 1, liberty was granted to the respondent No. 1 to recover the award amount from the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. the appellant herein.

4. The appellant has filed this appeal against the award dated 30.07.2008 on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has taken an erroneous view that the owner of the insured vehicle is liable to pay the awarded amount, particularly when the Insurance Company had not discharged the burden cast upon it for proving that the driving license of the driver was fake. It is also urged that the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to go into the question afresh as to whether the license was fake and as also to determine as to whether the owner was having knowledge regarding license being fake at the time when he employed the driver for driving the vehicle. It is also pleaded that the appellant at the time of engaging the driver for driving the said vehicle had properly checked the license and satisfied himself that the driver was expert and was in a position to drive the vehicle and he believed in bona fide that the driving license of the driver was valid as it was discernable from the license that it was initially issued by the Una Licensing Authority and thereafter the same was renewed by the Solan Licensing Authority. It is further pleaded that the respondent No. 1-Insurance Company has miserably failed to prove that it was within the knowledge of the appellant that the driver was having a fake license. It is also contended that the Insurance Company has neither examined the driver of the vehicle nor has summoned any record from the licensing authority, as such, the award to the extent of granting liberty to the respondent No. 1 to recover the amount from the appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

5. Mr. P. N. Raina, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the appellant had appeared in the witness box and had clearly stated that he had employed the driver after examining his license and believing the license to be genuine. He has further argued that the respondent No. 1-Insurance Company has not discharged its liability to prove that the license was fake, and the appellant was aware about the license being fake.

6. Mr. Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has argued that the learned Tribunal has rightly granted liberty to the respondent No. 1 to recover the award amount from the appellant, as such, the present appeal is misconceived.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. This Court vide its order dated 22.