Back
Sameer Gaba loses appeal: finds foreign licence invalid
The has firmly ruled that a alone does not entitle its holder to drive in India, unless accompanied by a valid or an endorsement from an Indian licensing authority. Justice Deepak Gupta dismissed an appeal by driver Sameer Gaba, who had challenged a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award granting the insurer against him and the vehicle owner.
The Tragedy and the Tribunal’s Award
The case stems from a tragic accident on , when a nine-month-old child, Jivika, died after the car driven by Sameer Gaba struck a motorcycle from behind while overtaking. The awarded ₹2,49,500 with 9% interest to the child's parents, holding Gaba and the car owner jointly liable. However, it directed the insurer to first satisfy the award and then recover the amount from Gaba and the owner, on the ground that Gaba did not possess a valid driving licence to drive in India. Gaba appealed against this recovery direction.
Appellant’s Bid to Shift Blame
Gaba’s counsel raised two primary arguments. First, they claimed that Gaba was not driving the car at the time of the accident. To support this, they pointed to the statement of Pankaj Kumar—the father of the deceased child and an eyewitness—who had testified before the Tribunal identifying Gaba as the driver, but later, in the parallel criminal trial, stated he could not see the driver. Gaba was eventually acquitted in the criminal case. The second argument was that even if he had been driving, Gaba held a valid Australian driving licence issued in Victoria, which the Tribunal wrongly ignored merely because it was not Indian.
Insurance Company’s Counter
The insurer’s counsel countered that criminal proceedings operate on a higher ——while claims tribunals decide on the . They argued that Pankaj Kumar’s testimony before the Tribunal remained unshaken in cross-examination and was corroborated by the FIR and police report. On the licence issue, the insurer highlighted that Gaba admitted in cross-examination that he had no Indian driving licence and that the Australian licence was not accompanied by any recognised under Indian law.
High Court’s Reasoning: Identity of Driver Stands
Justice Deepak Gupta examined the additional evidence of Pankaj Kumar’s inconsistent statement and the criminal acquittal. While acknowledging these as relevant circumstances, the court held that they did not automatically exonerate Gaba from . “An acquittal in the criminal case, therefore, does not exonerate the appellant from arising out of the same occurrence,” the court observed. Weighing the contemporaneous FIR naming Gaba, the police charge-sheet, and Gaba’s own admission of arrest without alleging false implication, the court concluded that the Tribunal’s finding on Gaba being the driver was not perverse. The non-examination of the car owner did not help Gaba, as his liability as the driver did not depend on proof of a formal employment relationship.
Foreign Licence: No Shortcut to Drive in India
On the licence issue, the court invoked , which requires an authorising the holder to drive in India. “A does not, merely because it is valid in the country of its issuance, automatically confer a right upon its holder to drive a motor vehicle in India,” Justice Gupta wrote. The court noted that Gaba not only failed to produce any Indian licence but could not even provide details of an earlier Indian licence he claimed to have deposited with Australian authorities. Moreover, no or Indian endorsement was produced. Relying on its own decision in Dilpreet Singh v. United India Insurance Co. (2015), where a Canadian licence was similarly held insufficient, the court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that Gaba lacked a valid driving licence for India.
Key Observations from the Judgment
“The appellant has not shown that the Australian licence produced by him fulfilled the statutory requirements applicable to a foreign national or a person temporarily visiting India, or that it was accompanied by a valid recognised in India.”
“An acquittal in the criminal case, therefore, does not exonerate the appellant from arising out of the same occurrence.”
“Proceedings before a Claims Tribunal are not governed by the strict applicable to a criminal prosecution. Negligence and involvement of the offending vehicle are required to be established on the touchstone of and not .”
Decision and Implications
Dismissing the appeal, the court held that neither Gaba’s criminal acquittal nor his Australian licence furnished any ground to interfere with the granted to the insurer. The court clarified that the dismissal would not affect the claimants’ right to receive the compensation, and the insurer remains liable to pay first, then recover from Gaba and the owner. The ruling reinforces that a foreign domestic driving licence, without the requisite international permit or Indian authorisation, is invalid for driving in India, and that insurers can recover amounts paid to third parties from drivers who flout this requirement.
