IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

225-2 cases

1.

FAO-5763-2009 Date of decision:01.07.2025 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

...APPELLANT VS.

NEHA AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS FAO-5764-2009

2.

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

...APPELLANT VS.

MANJIT SINGH AND ORS.

...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate for the appellant in both the cases.

None for the respondents in both the cases.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. This order shall dispose of both the above-noted appeals as they arise out of a common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ‘the Tribunal’). For the sake of convenience, factual position is being taken from FAO-5763-2009.

2. Appellant-Insurance Company is in appeal before this Court assailing award dated 04.08.2009 passed by MACT, Chandigarh, whereby claim petition filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the MV Act”) by claimant-respondent No.1 has been partly accepted and she has been granted compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a.

3. Facts, in brief, may be noticed. Neha (claimant/respondent No.1 in FAO-5763-2009) and Manjit (claimant/respondent No.1 in FAO-5764- 2009) were travelling in a Mahindra pick up jeep, which was being driven by Mohinder Singh. Tata 407 truck bearing registration No.HP-12-3404, which was being driven rashly by Narender Singh came from opposite side and collided with the jeep. Both the claimants, who were students, suffered multiple injuries. They remained admitted in PGI for two days and were operated upon. Claiming compensation of Rs.5 lacs each, both of them filed separate claim petitions, which have been disposed off by the impugned order.

4. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the driving license of Narinder Singh, driver of the offending vehicle, was not a valid one. By referring to the evidence led by the appellant, he submits that Surinder Singh, DW1, Junior Assistant, D.T.O. Office. Ferozepur, has produced the record to show that the original driving license was issued in the name of Sukhjinder Singh for driving car and scooter which could not be renewed in the name of Narinder Singh for driving of a LTV vehicle. He has argued that owner of the offending vehicle failed to establish that he had taken any steps to verify the genuineness of driving license of Narinder Singh. He urges that Tribunal has erred in imposing the liability upon the Insurance Company.

5. I have heard counsel for the appellant and considered his submission.

6. In United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lehru and others (2003) 3 SCC 338, Supreme Court has observed as under:-

“19. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prohibits driving of a motor vehicle in any public unless the driver has an effective driving licence. Further, Section 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes an owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle punishable with imprisonment or fine if he causes or permits a person without a licence to drive the vehicle. It is clear that the punishment under Section 180 can only be imposed if the owner or person in charge of the vehicle "causes or permits" driving by a person not duly licensed. Thus there can be no punishment if a person without a licence drives without permission of the owner. Section 149(2)(ii) merely recognises this condition. It therefore only absolves the insurance company where there is a breach by the insured.

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, wh