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