JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral)

By this common order, the above-captioned two appeals are being disposed off.

FAO No.2844 of 2013

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the fact that the recovery rights have not been given to it.

3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that the only grievance of the appellant-Insurance Company is that the recovery rights have not been given to the appellant-Insurance Company, which ought to have been given in view of the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding two driving licences.

4. None has put in appearance on behalf of the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and they are accordingly proceeded against exparte.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding two driving licenses. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the driver cannot hold two driving licenses and hence the Insurance Company cannot be held liable deserves to be rejected. In case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Raj Rani [1996 (2) PLR 495], a Division Bench of this Court held as under :

"10. In our considered view, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the Insurance company has failed to prove that driving licence Exhibit R-1 was a forged or fabricated document. It was duly issued and renewed by the District Transport Officer, Patiala, till October 5, 1996, covering the period of accident. The Insurance Company got verified licence Mark R-1 through its surveyor. Hence the Tribunal rightly held that on the date of accident the driver was having a valid driving licence."

7. Hence, keeping in view the law laid down in case of Raj Rani (supra), it was incumbent on the Insurance Company to get the license verified and to produce on record the evidence to show that the same was forged and fabricated. Further, in the present case the owner of the offending vehicle stepped into the witness-box and stated that he had employed the driver after verifying his driving licence.

8. In case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and Others, [2003(3) SCC 338] it has been held as under :

"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 insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly, even in such a case the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured."

9. In case of Pappu & Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. [(2018) 3 SCC 208], Hon'ble Supreme Court followed the conclusion reached in the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors.