IMPORTANT POINT
The insurer's liability cannot be negated solely on the basis of an invalid driving license; proof of negligence by the insured is required.

JUDGMENT :

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1. Challenge in the appeal, filed by the Insurance Company is to the award dated 02.12.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide which Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Cross-objectors/claimants have also filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to them.

2. This is a reconstructed case, as the original file was burnt in the fire that broke out in the concerned branch in the year 2011. Since the case is pending for more than 31 years, the counsel for the parties have no objection, if the same is decided on the basis of the available record.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has committed an error to hold the Insurance Company liable to make the payment of the compensation awarded, despite the fact that the driver of the maruti van was not holding a valid driving licence, as per the verification report of Surveyor. He further submits that the award is already excessive, thus he prays for dismissal of the cross-objection of the claimants.

4. Learned counsel for the cross-objectors submits that the deceased, 30 years old at the relevant time, was agriculturist and earning Rs.7000/- per month, however, the Tribunal has wrongly taken as Rs.1500/-. He left behind his wife, two minor children and aged parents. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. No amount has been awarded under the conventional heads.

5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and file perused, this Court is unable to countenance the submissions canvassed on behalf of the appellant-Insurance company, whereas those of the respondent/Cross-objectors are found to have merit.

6. As regards the contention of there being no liability of the Insurance company, the mere producing of the verification report was not sufficient, without examining the official of the licencing authority before the Tribunal to prove the same and granting an opportunity to the owner and driver to cross-examine such a witness. Considering the above, a worthwhile reference would be to National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007) 3 SCC 700, wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that, “Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicle by duly licenced driver or one who was not disqualify to drive at the relevant time….” Further in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs. National Insurance Company 2013(4) RCR Civil 273 it was observed that, the situation would be different if at any time of the insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence duly verified from the licencing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegations that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licencing authority. If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver was fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the insurance company is not liable for the compensation. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Lehru and others 2003(2) RCR Civil 278, it had been observed that the breach of contract by owner of the insured vehicle must be established by the insurance company as also that the vehicle was knowingly and intentionally handed over to