Bharatsingh and others vs State of M.P.

Appellant/ Insurance company has assailed the impugned award dated 06.12.2003 passed in Claim Case No.21/01 by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri (M.P.), on the ground that when original license as was produced by the driver was proved to be fake, then subsequent renewal will not turn the renewed license to be genuine.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the reasoning given by learned Claims Tribunal that the register which was brought by the officer of the R.T.O. namely- DW/2- Khemraj, was not in a serialized manner and there were certain loose entries could not have been used to make award against the insurance company inasmuch as there was a specific question put by learned counsel for the claimant to DW/2 i.e. official from R.T.O., Jhansi, namely- "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

Thus, it is apparent that learned counsel for the claimant had put a specific question about the insurance of license No.9125 and the deponent had clearly mentioned that such license was never issued, therefore, merely on technicalities about the upkeep of the official record which is not within the control of the insurance company, the insurance company could not have been fastened with liability to pay the claimant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company, Shimla Vs. Kamla & Others as reported in (2001) 4 SCC 342, wherein it has been held that- "Fake driving license unwittingly renewed by Licensing Authority, does not acquire legal validity and it remains a counterfeit document, therefore, the Insurance Company would be entitled to recover compensation paid to third-party accident victims or their heirs from insured whose driver had at the time of accident a fake license renewed."

Similarly, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut as reported in 2007(3) MPLJ 25, wherein it has been held that- "Renewal of license- where originally the license was a fake one, renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality. Once the license is a fake one, the renewal cannot take away the effect of fake license."

Therefore, placing reliance on these judgments of the Supreme Court, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award to the extent it fastened liability on the insurance company, needs to be set-aside against the insurance company and in the alternative, insurance company should be given a right to recover the amount from the insured, if the amount has already been paid.

In view of the specific evidence on record that the original license as was produced by the driver of the offending vehicle was a fake license, technicalities adverted to by the Claims Tribunal cannot be upheld and given a legal colour in view of the law laid-down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases that once a license is fake and in regard to which there was a categorical statement which remains unrebutted from DW/2- Khemraj, this Court is of the opinion that this appeal needs to be allowed and is allowed to the extent that award will not be binding on the insurance company and the insurance company shall stand exonerated.