RAKESH KUMAR Vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Bench: J. CHELAMESWAR,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Case number: C.A. No.-006199-006202 / 2016
Diary number: 32953 / 2015
Advocates: SHREE PAL SINGH Vs
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 6199-6202 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) Nos.33036-33039 of 2015)
Rakesh Kumar & Etc. Etc. …….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Etc.Etc. ……Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the common
final judgment and order dated 22.05.2014 passed
by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in F.A.O. Nos. 6935, 6937, 6977 of
1
Page 2
2011 and 907 of 2012 (O&M) wherein the High
Court partly allowed the appeals of the Insurance
Company and reversed the award dated 13.09.2011
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala in
MACT Case Nos. 97, 109 of 2008 and 28 of 2009
and exonerated the Insurance Company from the
liability arising out of the accident.
3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.
They, however, need mention in brief to appreciate
the short controversy involved in the appeals.
4. On 16.09.2008, Sheo Ram, Madan Mohan,
and Mohindro Devi along with others were traveling
in a three wheeler bearing Registration No.
PH-11TC-468 from Naraingarh to Shahzadpur.
Madan Mohan was driving the three wheeler on the
left side of the road. At about 10.30 a.m., when the
three wheeler reached near Bus stop of Village
Bharanpur on Naraingarh Shahzadpur Road, a
truck bearing Registration No. HR-37-C-7937,
2
Page 3
which came from the opposite side, struck the three
wheeler. Though its driver Madan Mohan tried to
avoid the accident by taking his vehicle on the
extreme left side of the road, yet all the occupants of
the three wheeler suffered multiple injuries. The
injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh in
private vehicles. Thereafter, Sheo Ram was referred
to PGI Chandigarh where he succumbed to his
injuries. A criminal case bearing FIR No. 88 dated
16.09.2008 was registered against Jaipal, driver of
Truck No. HR-37-C-7937 at the Police Station,
Shahzadpur, District Ambala for the commission of
offence punishable under Sections 279/337/304-A
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred
to as “the Code”). Madan Mohan, another injured,
who was driver of the three wheeler also died later
at Civil Hospital, Naraingarh. Smt. Mohindro Devi,
the third injured, also suffered a number of injuries
in the accident and was shifted to Civil Hospital,
3
Page 4
Naraingarh but later she also died.
5. The legal representatives of Sheo Ram filed
claim petition being MACT Case No. 97/2008, the
legal representatives of Madan Mohan filed claim
petition being MACT Case No. 109 of 2008 and legal
representatives of Mohindro Devi filed claim petition
being MACT Case No. 28 of 2009 before the MACT
(in short “the Tribunal”), Ambala under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the owner,
driver and insurer of offending vehicle, i.e.,
HR-37-C-7937 claiming compensation for a sum of
Rs.20,00,000/-, Rs.20,00,000/-and Rs.10,00,000/-
respectively.
6. It was contested by the non-applicants. One of
the defence of Insurance Company (R-3 therein) was
that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid
and effective license and hence no liability can be
fastened on the Insurance Company.
7. The Tribunal, vide common award dated
4
Page 5
13.09.2011, allowed the petitions filed by the
claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.6,05,000/- in
MACT Case No. 97/2008, Rs.4,56,8000/- in MACT
Case No.109 of 2008 and Rs.51,448/- in MACT
Case No.28 of 2009. It was, inter alia, held that the
Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation
as the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a
valid and effective driving license. It was also held
that the Insurance Company failed to adduce any
evidence to prove to the contrary.
8. Challenging the said order, the Insurance
Company filed FAO Nos. 6935, 6937 and
6977/2011 and the claimants filed FAO Nos. 906
and 907 of 2012 seeking enhancement of the
compensation.
9. By impugned judgment dated 22.05.2014, the
High Court reversed the award of the Tribunal in
part in the appeals filed by the Insurance Company
and held that since the driver of the offending
5
Page 6
vehicle did not possess a valid license to drive the
vehicle because he failed to file the original one and
filed its photocopy, the Insurance Company cannot
be held liable to pay the awarded sum. In other
words, the High Court held that the driving license
was not properly proved and hence it cannot be held
that the driver was having a valid driving license. In
this view of the matter, the Insurance Company was
exonerated from the liability from paying the
compensation. However, the Insurance Company
was directed to pay the awarded sum to the
claimants first and then to recover the awarded sum
from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle
on the principle of ‘pay and recover’.
10. Challenging the said order, the owner has filed
these appeals by way of special leave before this
Court.
11. A short question that arises for consideration
in these appeals is whether the High Court was
6
Page 7
justified in exonerating the Insurance Company
from the liability on the ground that the driver of
the offending vehicle did not possess valid license?
12. Heard Mr. A. Tewari, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. A.K. De, learned counsel for
respondent No.1.
13. Submission of Mr. A. Tewari, learned counsel
for the appellant, while attacking the impugned
order was essentially two-fold.
14. In the first place, learned counsel urged that
the High Court erred in exonerating the Insurance
Company from the liability arising out of the
accident. He submitted that the Tribunal having
rightly held that the Insurance Company was liable
to pay the compensation to the claimants as the
driver of offending vehicle was having a valid driving
license at the time of accident and that the vehicle
in question was admittedly insured with the
insurance company, there was no justifiable reason
7
Page 8
for the High Court to have reversed the finding of
the Tribunal and exonerated the Insurance
Company from the liability.
15. In the second place, learned counsel urged
that the High Court failed to see that the driver of
the offending vehicle had filed the photo copy of his
driving license, which was also proved (Exhibit-R 1)
by him without there being any objection of the
Insurance Company. Learned counsel further
pointed out that apart from this, the Insurance
Company failed to adduce any evidence to prove
that the license held by the driver was fake or not
genuine etc.
16. Learned counsel urged that the finding of the
High Court is, therefore, not legally sustainable and
hence deserves to be set aside and that of the
Tribunal on this issue is liable to be restored.
17. In reply, learned counsel for respondent No.1
(Insurance Company) supported the reasoning of
8
Page 9
the High Court and contended that the impugned
order should be upheld calling no interference
therein.
18. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to accept the submissions urged by the
learned counsel for the appellant as in our opinion,
they deserve acceptance.
19. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal was
right in holding that the driver of the offending
vehicle possessed a valid driving license at the time
of accident and that the Insurance Company failed
to adduce any evidence to prove otherwise. This
finding of the Tribunal, in our view, should not have
been set aside by the High Court for the following
reasons:
20. First, the driver of the offending vehicle
(N.A.-2) proved his driving license (Exhibit-R1) in his
evidence. Second, when the license was proved, the
9
Page 10
Insurance Company did not raise any objection
about its admissibility or manner of proving. Third,
even if any objection had been raised, it would have
had no merit because it has come on record that the
original driving license was filed by the driver in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First class, Naraingarh
in a criminal case arising out of the same accident.
Fourth, in any event, once the license was proved by
the driver and marked in evidence and without
there being any objection by the Insurance
Company, the Insurance Company had no right to
raise any objection about the admissibility and
manner of proving of the license at a later stage (See
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Premlata
Shukla & Ors., (2007) 13 SCC 476) and lastly, the
Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence
to prove that the driving license (Ex.R1) was either
fake or invalid for some reason.
21. In the light of foregoing reasons, we are of the
10
Page 11
considered opinion that the High court was not
right in reversing the finding of the Tribunal.
Indeed, the High Court should have taken note of
these reasons which, in our view, were germane for
deciding the issue of liability of the Insurance
Company arising out of the accident.
22. We, therefore, find no good ground to concur
with the finding of the High Court. Thus while
reversing the finding, we hold that the driver of the
offending vehicle was holding a valid driving license
(Exhibit-R1) at the time of accident and since the
Insurance Company failed to prove otherwise, it was
liable to pay the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal and enhanced by the High Court.
23. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals
filed by the insured (owner of the offending vehicle)
succeed and are allowed. Impugned order in so far
as it relates to exonerating of the Insurance
Company from the liability to pay the compensation
11
Page 12
is set aside and the Insurance Company
(Respondent No.1) is held liable to pay the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal and
enhanced by the High Court jointly and severally
along with the driver and owner of the offending
vehicle.
24. No costs.
………...................................J. [J. CHELAMESWAR]
…...……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; July 13, 2016
12