AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Indermeet Kaur, J. 1. The appellant before this Court is the owner of the vehicle which was the subject matter of the accident. The claimants Sh. Satpal Dhingra and Smt. Panchano Dhingra had claimed compensation on account of the death of their son Jatindra Dhingra in the fateful accident which was occurred on 05.12.1995; the driver of the vehicle was Kala; the vehicle had been registered in the name of the Canter Leasing & Finance (P) Ltd. (respondent No. 2); it was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 3). The driver and the owner i.e. respondent No. 1 and 2 had been proceeded ex parte. Petition had been contested by the Insurance Company alone. The Award had been passed in favour of the claimants on 22.04.2004. Recovery rights had been awarded in favour of the Insurance Company. Thereafter on an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC filed by the owner of the vehicle, his application was allowed; the owner was given an opportunity to prove his defense.
The owner is the appellant before this Court. He had examined two witnesses to support his case. He had examined Rakesh Kumar as R2W1 and Rajesh Arora as R2W2; his defense was that he had given this vehicle to Raj Kumar Gupta by way of lease under whose control and management it was; Raj Kumar Gupta had employed driver Kala; he was a licensed and a skilled driver; in fact the owner/appellant had himself diligently checked the license of the driver Kala and there was no reason to suspect his license; his driving had also been tested by the appellant.
Testimony of the two witnesses examined on behalf of the owner is relevant. They were R2W1 Rakesh Kumar, he was the field officer of the owner i.e. of the Canter Leasing & Finance (P) Ltd. This witness was the employee of the Raj Kumar Gupta; he was not an employee of the appellant. He had admitted that he himself had not checked the driving license of the driver; one of his officials had carried out a test check of the driving skills of the driver namely Kala. The second witness examined on behalf of the appellant was R2W2 namely Rajesh Arora; he had deposed that the driving license of the driver had been seen by him. A perusal of this license shows that it was issued on 18.11.1991; it was shown as valid upto 17.11.1999 admittedly this vehicle was a commercial vehicle; license for a commercial vehicle is valid for a period of three years; the validity of this license was up to 17.11.1994 which itself casts a doubt and suspicion on this license as in terms of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act the license for a transport vehicle has a life only for a period of three years. The statements of these witnesses thus do not advance the submission of the appellant/owner that all reasonable care had been taken by the appellant to ensure that a valid driving license was held by the driver; in fact, a perusal of the driving license (as noted supra) shows that it was issued on 18.11.1991; it�s validity had expired in the year 1994; but the renewal shows that it was renewed on 17.11.1999.
It was in these circumstances and in this factual scenario that recovery rights had been granted to the Insurance Company against the owner.
Admittedly, this vehicle is registered in the name of the appellant. The lease agreement/R2W1/2 makes it clear that the appellant could have asked Raj Kumar Gupta to indemnify the loss suffered by it. However, he did not make any efforts to do so.
Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the judgment of 2004 ACJ titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. is of no help. The question as to whether reasonable care has been taken by the owner to check as to whether the driving license produced by the driver is fake or otherwise has to be determined in the facts of each case.
In ILR (2007) Del 733 titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors. a Bench of this Court had noted that where initial onus has been discharged by the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company has been able to show that the driving license is fake/invalid and the owner is not able to disprove this; the Insurance Company makes out a case of recovery against the owner. This is so in the instant case as well.
Appeal has no merit. Appeal is dismissed.