IMPORTANT POINT
The employer's verification of a driver's license suffices unless there is reason to doubt its validity, placing the burden of proof on the insurer.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

The present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the insurer against the judgment dated 06.06.2011, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge/1st F.T.C., Haldwani, District Nainital in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.183 of 2009, by which the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.10,44,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Forty Four Thousand) as a compensation with 7 percent per annum interest from the date of filing the petition till its actual payment.

2. The case of the respondents-claimants is that on 28.12.2008, Anand Ram (deceased) was travelling in Bus No. UA07-S/9649 with his wife Smt. Govindi Devi (respondent no.1-claimant). The driver (respondent no.6) of the said bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the bus met with an accident at around 2:30 in the night on 29.12.2008. Anand Ram suffered serious injuries in the said accident. He was taken to the hospital. He was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, where he died on 31.12.2008.

3. The present appeal has been filed on the sole ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.

4. Heard Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ayush Agarwal, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Akhil Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4-claimants and Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

5. Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that the Uttarakhand Parivahan Nigam (respondent no.5), the owner of the offending vehicle, had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

6. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate, appearing for the owner of the offending vehicle (respondent no.5), on the other hand, argued that at the time of employing the driver (respondent no.6), his driving licence was checked by the employer and his driving licence was found to be genuine.

7. Sukhchain Singh (DW-1), the driver of the offending vehicle, was cross-examined by the insurance company. Sukhchain Singh (DW-1) has stated in his cross-examination that his old driving licence was issued from Moradabad. He had shown his driving licence to the competent officer of his department, on the basis of which he got the job.

8. The onus was on the appellant-Insurance Company to prove that the owner of the offending vehicle, the insured, did not take adequate care and caution to check the driving licence or the insured was guilty of willful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy.

9. In Nirmala Kothari Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2020) 4 SCC 49, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held,

“12. While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise. If the employer finds the driver to be competent to drive the vehicle and has satisfied himself that the driver has a driving licence there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and the insurance company would be liable under the policy. It would be unreasonable to place such a high onus on the insured to make enquiries with RTOs all over the country to ascertain the veracity of the driving licence. However, if the insurance company is able to prove that the owner/insured was aware or had notice that the licence was fake or invalid and still permitted the person to drive, the insurance company would no longer continue to be liable.”

10. The appellant has failed to prove its onus that the owner of the offending vehicle was aware or had notice that the driving licence of the driver was fake or invalid and still permitted the respondent no.6, the driver, to drive the vehicle.

11. Thus,