Ravi Dutt vs Ravi and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

This petition is filed against the order dated 09.07.2014, dismissing the application of the petitioner for additional evidence. In brief, the petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing registration No. PB-12-H-3761 which was involved in the accident took place on 04.10.2012, in respect of which respondent No. 1 filed the claim petition. Both the petitioner and the driver filed a joint written statement. The driver and the petitioner produced the fake driving license before the Tribunal and the evidence of the petitioner was closed. The insurance company produced evidence to prove that the driving license was fake but there is no dispute that the vehicle of the petitioner was insured. It is alleged that after the closure of the evidence of the insurance company, the petitioner came to know from his advocate about the fact of fake driving license. The petitioner then filed the application in order to produce on record the other driving license shown to him by the driver at the time of his employment but the said application has been dismissed on the ground that two licenses cannot be held.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Raj Rani and Others, and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through its Law Officer, Regional Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh v. Krishna widow of Ram Pal (deceased) and others, FAO No. 17 of 2000, decided on 19.07.2010, to contend that if the driver is holding two licenses and the insurance company verified only one which was found forged and the other license produced is found to be properly issued and valid on the date of accident but the insurance company did not verify the same, the company is liable to pay the compensation.

On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that at the time of leading evidence, no effort was made by the petitioner to produce the driving license now sought to be produced by way of additional evidence and it has nowhere been alleged that the said driving license was not within the knowledge of the petitioner earlier.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, I am of the considered opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be allowed.

In The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.''s case (supra), this Court has observed that the insurance company cannot take the defence that the driver could not have two driving licenses as it would invite certain actions if Rules so provide and also it cannot plead that it is in violation of the terms of the policy if the other driving license is found to be valid.

Similarly, in United India Insurance Company Limited''s case (supra), the Division Bench has held that if the driver is holding two licenses and the insurance company verified only one which was found to be forged and the other license produced is found to be properly issued and valid on the date of accident, the company is solely liable to pay the compensation.

Thus, taking a cue from it, it is hereby held that in such a case where the claimants are praying for compensation on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle which is duly insured, the question of liability of the insurer depend upon the validity of the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle which affects all the parties to the lis, more particularly the owner of the offending vehicle, therefore, the second driving license, alleged to have been validly issued, deserves to be brought on record for the purpose of verification by the insurance company and if it is found to be valid at the time when the accident took place, the insurance company would be liable to pay the compensation to indemnify the insured and the claimants would also get their share of compensation accordingly. In view of the above, the present revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order is set aside.