Insurer's right to recover against vehicle owner established when driver lacks valid license.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the third respondent insurer in OP(MV) No.321 of 2013 on the files of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Kasaragod, seeking right of recovery against the owner of the offending vehicle. The respondents herein were respondents 1 & 2 before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 03.02.2013, while the claimant was waiting by the side of the road, a tractor bearing Reg.No.TN/51/A/7689 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit him, whereby he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹1,50,000/-. The first respondent, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, filed a counter statement before the tribunal, denying negligence. The second respondent, who was the owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. It was also contended that the first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Exts.A1 to A5 series were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹74,265/- rounded off to ₹75,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent being the insurer. Aggrieved by the denial of the right of recovery against the owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that the first respondent/driver did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, the respondent insurer has come up in appeal.

3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/insurer and the learned counsel for the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal went wrong in denying right of recovery against the owner of the offending vehicle despite the finding that the first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It is further submitted that though the insurer had filed an application seeking a direction to the owner as well as the driver of the offending vehicle to produce the driving licence, the same was not produced.

5. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the tribunal found that there was no valid driving licence for the first respondent/driver to drive the offending vehicle. In paragraph No.12 of the impugned award, the tribunal has considered in detail the issue of non possession of driving licence. However, the tribunal held the insurer liable to indemnify the owner on the ground that the insurer had failed to establish that the absence of a valid driving licence had contributed to the occurrence of the accident.

6. Admittedly, the first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle had filed a reply affidavit to IA No.2354 of 2014 filed by the insurer before the tribunal seeking direction to the driver to produce the driving licence, wherein it was admitted that he was not having a valid driving licence to drive the tractor/offending vehicle. In the judgment of the apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh [2004 KHC 314] , it is held that if there was no driving licence for the driver of the offending vehicle, the insurer is entitled to get a right of recovery against the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, I hold that the insurer is entitled to the right of recove