Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Dalbir Singh and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment dated 26.9.1988 passed by the learned Single Judge in FAO No. 1099 of 1987 which was filed by the respondent No.1 against the award dated 10.8.1987 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ropar.

Gurbachan Singh, who was working as JBT Teacher died as a result of accident caused by car No. HYA-77 near Ice Factory at Chamkaur Sahib, where the deceased was standing. Gurbachan Singh was injured in the accident and after remaining hospitalised for almost a month and half, he died at the age of 42 years. In the claim petition filed by the heirs of Gurbachan Singh, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver Dalbir Singh alias Balbir Singh alias Gudda. It further held that heirs of the deceased were entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 94,440/-. However, the tribunal also accepted the plea of the Insurance Company-appellant that it was not liable to pay compensation and directed that the compensation be paid by Balbir Singh alias Balbir Singh alias Gudda. In the appeal filed by the respondent No.1, Dalbir Singh, the learned Single Judge held that he possessed a valid driving licence and, therefore, the Insurance Company and the; driver were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation alongwith interest.

The only argument advanced by Shri S.S. Aulakh, learned counsel for the appellant is that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge on the issue of validity of the driving licence is erroneous. Shri Aulakh argued that the learned Single Judge ought not to have accepted the driving licence Ex.P.10 which was produced by way of application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. He submitted that the driver had produced a forged licence to get himself relieved from the liability to pay compensation.

We have carefully persued the impugned judgment and are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge that the Insurance Company is jointly and severally, liable to pay compensation. While dealing with the issue relating to the validity of driving licence the learned Single Judge observed :-

"It was vehemently contended by the appellant that the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability. It was urged that in view of Exhibit -.P.10 that is the driving licence secured by him later and there being no evidence that he was ever disqualified from driving by the authorities, the Insurance Company is liable. The counsel for the appellant relies upon Abdul Zabbar v. Ram Swaroop and Ors. 1985 A.C.J. 594. I am afraid the contention raised by the appellant has no force in it in as much as the judgment cited it was observed that the statement made by the driver that he had no valid driving licence at the time of accident does not prove that he was disqualified from holding the licence. The case was remanded on a question of fact, whether the owner was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence within the meaning of Section 96(2) (b). No such proposition is involved in the present case. The respondent has examined Uttam Singh (RW2) Clerk of the Licensing Authority, who stated that there is no entry in the register with respect to the issuance of the licence in dispute. It was further stated by him that the seal and signature on the driving licence were forged. The register was not produced in the Court. It was not the case in defence that the licence was forged. It was only with respect to the validity that the, defence was raised. Nothing has been said by Uttam Singh (RW2) with respect to the licence fee and the mere absence of the entry in the register of licenses does not prove that the appellant has forged the licence in particular when the register has been withheld for reasons best known to the respondent. In these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the statement of Uttam Singh for returning a finding . that the licence produced was a forged one."

In our opinion, there is no reason to disturb the Finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. The burden to establish that the licence Exhibit P.10 was forged squarely lay upon the appellant and as it failed to adduce cogent evidence to discharge that burden, the learned Single Judge rightly held it liable to pay compensation alongwith the driver.

In the premise aforesaid, we hold that the appeal is without merit and it is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.