IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:22.04.2026 RAM PARKASH ...APPELLANT VERSUS RAMA RANI AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for appellants.

Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.4-Insurance Company.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Present appeal has been preferred against impugned award dated 13.09.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), by owner being aggrieved by fixation of entire liability upon him to pay compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- along with interest, awarded to claimants in view of finding of learned Tribunal that driver was not holding a valid driving licence.

2. Claim petition was preferred by parents of deceased Vinod Kumar @ Sonu who had died in motor vehicular accident dated 08.07.1999 allegedly due to rash and negligent driving of driver Sham Lal while driving truck bearing registration No.PB-07-B-2065 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’).

3. In present case, no appeal has been preferred by claimants or other respondents except by owner of offending vehicle who has been found liable to pay compensation. Insurance Company, was exonerated from indemnifying owner of offending vehicle and was given right to recover the amount payable to claimants after making the payment to the claimants.

4. Learned counsel for appellant-owner has argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in fixing sole liability on appellant-owner to pay compensation by giving right to Insurance Company to pay and recover the amount of compensation awarded to claimants. It is asserted that driving license issued in favour of driver was issued by the DTO Hoshiarpur which was on the basis of old license issued by Licencing Authority Gwalior. The official from Licensing Authority, Gwalior was duly examined by Court Commissioner, who duly asserted that though driving license has been issued by their office but same was not found entered in the record of their Office. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had concluded that driver was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and had fixed liability on driver and owner by giving liberty to Insurance Company to recover same after making the payment.

5. Learned counsel for appellant has further argued that learned Tribunal has erred in fixing the liability on owner without taking into consideration evidence of appellant who had duly appeared as RW2. Perusal of evidence of RW2 shows that appellant had duly stated before the Court that he had employed Sham Lal as driver in the year 1996 after checking his driving license and verifying the same from DTO Hoshiarpur. RW2 had further stated that he had conducted driving test of driver and had found him fit to drive the vehicle. RW2 also stated that Sham Lal was a good driver and was not involved in any accident prior to the said accident. RW-2, in his cross-examination, denied having any knowledge about non-issuance of license by Licensing Authority, Gwalior.

6. Upon consideration, I find that learned Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration evidence of RW2 to exonerate Insurance Company from paying compensation jointly and severally with driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company, 2014 AIR (SC) 305 had held as under:-

“8. In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to