$~15 & 16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 395/2019, CM APPL. 13319/2019, CM APPL.

13320/2019 & CM APPL. 13321/2019 TEK SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Moksh Arora, Advocate.

versus NAVRATAN & ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Seema Gulati, Advocate for R-3.

+ MAC.APP. 407/2019, CM APPL. 13931/2019, CM APPL.

13932/2019 & CM APPL. 13933/2019.

TEK SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Moksh Arora, Advocate.

versus SANDEEP & ORS ( NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD)

.....Respondent Through: Ms. Seema Gulati, Advocate for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026

1. Counsel for appellant, Mr. Moksh Aroa, states that the licences which was presented by driver named Tejpal [respondent no.2 herein] before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal [‘MACT’], upon verification, turned out to be non-existent.

2. Yet another licence was subsequently produced by the driver (“2^nd Licence”), which could not be verified during the proceedings before the MACT.

3. Accordingly, the MACT, in its award at paragraph 74, stated that the burden was upon the driver to prove the driving license by leading evidence from the Transport Authority, and that such burden was not discharged.

4. Consequently, the right of recovery was granted to the Insurance Company against the owner of the offending vehicle.

5. Mr. Arora points out that while the original license was produced and exhibited as Ex. R1W1/1 which forms part of the TCR and was valid, the verification which negated is exhibited as Ex. R3W1/2

6. Mr. Arora states that verification of the allegedly valid license/2^nd Licence, was obtained from the Regional Transport Office (RTO), Nagaland, and has been appended as part of the appeal at Annexure A-12 which is extracted for ready reference:

7. In these circumstances, the matter may be required to be re- considered qua the rights of recovery which has been granted to the respondent/Insurance Company. He further states that, in any event, even if the valid license was not considered, he would be protected from the right of recovery in terms of the principle enunciated by Supreme Court in Rishi Pal Singh v New India Assurance Co. Ltd and Ors, 2022 SCC OnLine SC

2119. Relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:

“7. If the owner has stated that driver had produced the driving license from Nagaland but no such license was produced on record, it is obviously a mistake on the part of the owner. However, such aspect cannot be used to grant liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner when the driving license actually produced by the claimant themselves was from Una, Himachal Pradesh. It may be stated that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not the principle applicable in India. Therefore, even if a part of the statement that the driver has produced the license from Nagaland is not correct, it is wholly inconsequential.

8. To appreciate the contention of the appellant, the observations of this Court in Lehru (supra) have been reproduced 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