Rajendra Singh Sajwan & Others vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others

Lok Pal Singh, J

1) These two appeals have been directed against the judgment / award dated 26.07.2010, passed by the District Judge / Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dehradun, in M.A.C. Case No. 139 of 2006, Smt. Kiran and others Vs Sukhpal and others, whereby recoverable rights were given to the insurance company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle.

2) Heard learned counsel for owner of the vehicle and perused the papers brought on record.

3) The tribunal has recorded its finding on the issues so framed. While recording findings on the validity of the driving license, the learned Tribunal held that on the date of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and, consequently, passed the award with the direction that New India Assurance Company Act, with whom the offending vehicle was insured, shall pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

4) Feeling aggrieved owner of the vehicle filed A.O. no. 468 of 2010 before this Court on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was having valid driving license on the date of accident. This court having found two contradictory driving licenses on record, vide order dated 27.06.2019, directed the Regional Transport Officer, Rishikesh for verification of Form-54 and shall submit a detailed report before the Court. Pursuant to the order dated 27.06.2019, Asstt. Regional Transport Officer, Rishikesh has submitted its report dated 06.07.2019 in regard to the issuance of license in favour of Sukhpal Singh driver of the offending vehicle.

5) A perusal of the report would reveal that the license was renewed from time to time, but it was not renewed on the date of accident, i.e. 31.01.2006. A further perusal of the report would reveal that the license was renewed from 05.02.2002 to 04.02.2005 and thereafter w.e.f. 03.01.2009 to 02.01.2012. In view of the report submitted by the Asstt. Regional Transport Officer, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, it transpires that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid driving license on the date of accident. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on this issue that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the effective and valid driving license on the date of accident. The appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

6) Also heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company.

7) Perusal of the award passed by learned Tribunal would reveal that the award has been passed with the direction to the insurance company to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and then recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.

8) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manuara Khatun and others Vs Rajesh Kr. Singh and others, (2017) 4 SCC 796 and catena of other judgments has held that since the vehicle was insured with the insurance company and on account of the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid driving license at the relevant point of time, firstly the insurance company has to indemnify and then recover the amount from the insured. Thus, the appeal filed by the insurance company, being A.O. no. 336 of 2010, is also liable to be dismissed.

9) In view of the above, both the appeals are devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.