The court held that ownership does not absolve liability without evidence proving knowledge of the driver's invalid license.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the 1^st respondent/owner in O.P(MV)

No.549 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara challenging the right of recovery granted by the tribunal to recover the award amount from the appellant/1st respondent, owner. The respondents herein are the claimants 1 to 3 and respondents 2 and 3 before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 29.01.2010 at about 05.30 pm, while the deceased was proceeding through the margin of the public road, a goods carriage autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-18E- 4503 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the deceased. As a result of the accident, the claimant had sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 02.02.2010. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹6,24,000/-

limited to ₹4,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondent/owner and driver of the offending autorickshaw did not file any written statement. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the validity of the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying the liability by contending that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence to drive the insured vehicle. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A6 and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹2,91,770/- as compensation under different heads with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 3^rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle and directed to recover the same from the 1^st respondent/driver. Challenging the right of recovery granted by the tribunal against the appellant/first respondent/owner, the appellant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/owner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/owner submitted that the tribunal has granted right of recovery to recover the said amount from the owner without proper consideration of the facts of the case for the reason that the driver was not having a valid driving license and that the licence produced was fake. The learned counsel further submitted that in the written statement, the insurer did not have any contention that the owner had engaged the driver knowing that the driving licence was fake. It is also submitted that in order to absolve the insurance company from the liability, no evidence was adduced by them. The learned counsel further submitted that the owner was not aware that the licence owned by the driver was a fake driving licence. Merely because the driving licence was found to be fake, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd v. Geeta Devi [2023 KHC 6960] wherein it was held that ‘it is only if the owner was aware of the fact that the licence was fake but still permitted such driver to drive the vehicle that the insurer would stand absolved’. The learned counsel further submitted that, although the insurance company contended that the driving licence at the time of the accident was a fake one, it did not adduce any evidence to prove that the insured had failed to take adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness of the licence. In support of the afore submission, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nirmala Kothari v.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd (2020 KHC 6250)

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that, though a conte