Mahinder Singh vs Babu Lal And Ors

FAO-2382-2012(O&M) - 1 -
FAO-2383-2012(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on : 23.09.2026
Pronounced on: 04.11.2026
Uploaded on : 04.11.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or the full Judgment is pronounced: Full Judgment
1. FAO-2382-2012 (O&M)
MAHINDER SINGH @ MAHENDER KUMAR
... APPELLANT
Versus
BABU LAL AND ORS.
... RESPONDENTS
2. FAO-2383-2012 (O&M)
MAHINDER SINGH @ MAHENDER KUMAR
... APPELLANT
Versus
SHARDA DEVI AND ORS.
... RESPONDENTS
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY
Present:- Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate and
Ms. Lalita, Advocate
for the appellants (in both the appeals).
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondent No.2-Insurance Company in FAO-2382-2012
and for respondent No.5-Insurance Company in FAO-2383-2012
*
SANJIV BERRY, J.
CM-10535-CII of 2012 in FAO No. 2382-2012
CM-10539-CII of 2012 in FAO No. 2383-2012
1. Applications are allowed as prayed for.
GYAN CHAND
2026.11.04 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2382-2012(O&M) - 2 -
FAO-2383-2012(O&M)
2. The delay of 2109 days in filing both the appeals is hereby
condoned.
CM-11672-CII of 2024 in FAO No. 2382-2012
CM-11663-CII of 2024 in FAO No. 2383-2012
1. Both the applications are allowed as prayed for.
2. The Verification Report (Annexure R-2/1) is taken on record,
subject to all just exceptions.
FAO- 2382-2012(O&M) and FAO-2383-2012(O&M)
1. Both the aforesaid appeals arising out of the same award dated
04.03.2006 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) have been taken up together for disposal.
2. The instant appeals have been preferred by the appellant-owner of
the offending truck against the impugned award dated 04.03.2006 passed by
learned Tribunal as well as orders dated 01.02.2012 whereby applications for
setting aside the ex-parte award dated 04.03.2006 had been dismissed by the
learned Tribunal.
3. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that on 28.04.2003 at around
9:30 AM, the claimant Satbir and Mahabir Singh (since deceased) were riding on
a scooter from Charkhi Dadri towards their village, Rawaldhi and when they
reached Rohtak-bypass, an offending truck bearing registration number RJ-18G-
1494 struck their scooter from behind. The truck was allegedly being driven in a
rash and negligent manner as a result of which both the riders sustained multiple
injuries. Mahabir Singh succumbed to his injuries, while Satbir survived and
underwent extensive medical treatment. An FIR was lodged regarding the
accident and due to a clerical error or mistake, the driver's name was initially
GYAN CHAND
2026.11.04 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2382-2012(O&M) - 3 -
FAO-2383-2012(O&M)
recorded as Suresh (who was actually an eyewitness) instead of the actual driver,
Babu Lal. The police eventually presented the charge sheet against Babu Lal.
3.1 The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bhiwani,
consolidated the claim petitions and passed an award on 04.03.2006 granting
₹ ₹
1,23,919 to Satbir and 3,46,000 to the legal heirs of Mahabir Singh.
3.2 The truck owner, Mahinder Singh (the appellant), was proceeded
against ex parte and held liable because the driver did not produce a valid
driving license during the trial. Mahinder Singh later moved to set aside the ex
parte order, claiming that he was never properly served and that unauthorized
advocates appeared on his behalf. However, the Tribunal dismissed his
application on 01.02.2012. Aggrieved by the award dated 04.03.2006 and order
dated 01.02.2012 appellant preferred the present appeals.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contended that the
ex-parte award dated 04.03.2006 passed by learned Tribunal, was illegal and
arbitrary. He contends that the appellant was never personally served with a
formal notice of the claim petition and he learnt about the award only when
revenue authorities approached him with recovery warrants.
4.1 Learned counsel further contends that advocates (Sh. V.P. Sangwan,
Sh. Vivek Sheoran, and Sh. Attar Singh Sihag) whose appearances were marked
on behalf of the appellant, had no authorization or power of attorney
(Vakalatnama) from him on the record of the case.
4.2 Learned counsel further contends that driver Babu Lal, held a valid
and effective driving license (License No. RJ-18/25469) issued by the Licensing
Authority, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) on 23 December 1992 (Annexure A-1). He was
authorized to drive Heavy Transport Vehicles (HTV) with effect from 9 October
GYAN CHAND
2026.11.04 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2382-2012(O&M) - 4 -
FAO-2383-2012(O&M)
1995, and the license was validly renewed up to 15 January 2005. Since the
accident occurred on 28 April 2003, the driver possessed a valid license on the
date of the incident, the report of the licensing Authority, Jhunjhnu (Annexure A-
2) also verified the license, meaning thereby the license was valid at the time of
the accident, hence the Insurance Company should be held liable to pay the
compensation instead of the owner.
4.3 Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the driver of the
truck is having valid license and the fact has been verified by the insurance
company by filing the verification report dated 09.10.2019 (Annexure R-2/1)
itself, though the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the “driver did not
possess a driving licence”, and fastened the recovery of compensation amount
on the appellant, in an arbitrary and illegal manner. Hence prayed for acceptance
of the appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent- insurance company contended
that the driver of the vehicle did not appear before the Tribunal and no license
was produced before the learned Tribunal, therefore, the learned Tribunal has
rightly passed the award and fastened the liability to recover the compensation
amount from the appellant.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. After considering the rival contention and perusing the record it is
not disputed that on 28.04.2003, the claimant Satbir along with one Mahabir
Singh (since deceased) were traveling on a scooter from Charkhi Dadri towards
their village Rawaldhi. A truck bearing registration number RJ-18G-1494, owned
by the appellant and driven by Respondent No. 1 (Babu Lal) in a rash and
GYAN CHAND
2026.11.04 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2382-2012(O&M) - 5 -
FAO-2383-2012(O&M)
negligent manner, struck the scooter from behind resulting in fatal injuries to
Mahabir Singh and severe injuries to Satbir.
7.1 It is also not disputed that a claim petition was filed and vide award
₹
dated 04.03.2006 compensation was awarded amounting to 1,23,919 to Satbir
₹
and 3,46,000 to the legal heirs of Mahabir Singh.
8. Before proceeding further it would apt to reproduce the para 21 of
the award dated 04.03.2006 passed by learned Tribunal:-
“ 21. So far as the question of liability to pay the above
compensation is concerned, it is an accepted fact that the driver did
not appear in the witness-box. However, RW1 Sanjiv Kumar,
Ahlmad testified that the challan under Sections 279/304-A IPC has
been filed against the said driver. But he is stealing the heart of law
in criminal proceedings, so, the proceedings under sections
82/83/Cr.PC. are in operation. He further stated that driving
licence is not attached in the criminal case. It transpires that the
driver did not possess a driving licence. Admittedly, the offending
vehicle was insured on the date of accident. The insured
(respondent No.2) has flagrantly flouted the terms and conditions of
the insurance policy by handing over the offending vehicle to a
person, who was not having a driving licence. It is settled
proposition of law, laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that once
the vehicle is insured, the insurance company cannot be absolved
from liability. Consequently, the compensation amount, in question,
shall be paid by the company (respondent No.3) under the policy
"pay and recover". Thus, liability to pay the above compensation is
fastened upon the insurance company, which can be recovered from
the insured (respondent No.2). Hence, this issue stands decided,
accordingly”
9. The Tribunal fastened the ultimate liability upon the appellant-
owner by granting recovery rights to Respondent-Insurance Company on the sole
premise that the driver did not hold a valid driving license.
10. Admittedly, the driver of the vehicle Babu Lal is having a valid
driving license at the time of accident and this fact has been proved by the
appellant by filing the photocopies of licence and report of the Licensing
GYAN CHAND
2026.11.04 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2382-2012(O&M) - 6 -
FAO-2383-2012(O&M)
Authority Jhunjhnu and the above fact has not been disputed by the Insurance
Company as the verification report in original (Annexure R-1/2) has been filed
by the Insurance Company in compliance of the directions issued to them.
11. It is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment
of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 . It was
categorically held therein that to avoid its liability towards the insured, the
insurer has to establish that the breach of policy conditions regarding the driver
holding a valid and effective driving license, was fundamental in nature and that
the insured/owner was guilty of conscious negligence or absolute lack of due
diligence. In the present case, the initial presumption of policy violation stands
fully rebutted by the production of the authenticated verification certificate
(Annexure A-2) issued by the Licensing Authority, Jhunjhunu. Furthermore, this
Court in Ram Avtar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (2) RCR (Civil)
441 , wherein it has held that if a valid driving license is brought on record even
at the appellate stage by invoking the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the
recovery rights granted to the Insurance Company cannot be sustained, and the
insurer must bear the exclusive liability to satisfy the award. Consequently, the
fundamental substratum upon which the learned Tribunal based its findings to
grant recovery rights completely stands dissolved.
12. Consequently, since it is established on record that the driver of the
offending vehicle Babu Lal (i.e. respondent No. 1 in FAO No. 2382-2012 and
respondent No.6 in FAO No.2383-2012) was holding a valid and effective
licence at the time of accident, as is evident from verification certificate dated
09.10.2019 (Annexure A-2), therefore the insurer cannot be absolved of its
GYAN CHAND
2026.11.04 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2382-2012(O&M) - 7 -
FAO-2383-2012(O&M)
statutory liability, therefore, there is no occasion to grant recovery rights to the
Insurer from the owner of the vehicle.
13. Resultantly, in view of the above, both the appeals are hereby
allowed and impugned award dated 04.03.2006 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani in MACT Petition No. 56 of 2003 and
MACT Petition No. 133 of 2003 is modified only to the extent of setting aside
the recovery rights granted to the respondent-United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
against the appellant-owner, thereby holding the respondent-United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. (i.e. respondent No.2 in FAO No. 2382-2012 and respondent
No.5 in FAO No.2383-2012) solely and exclusively liable to satisfy the entire
compensation amount awarded to the claimants vide Award dated 04.03.2006.
14. It is made clear that amount, if any, recovered from the appellant-
owner of the vehicle in both the appeals by the revenue or executing authorities
during the pendency of these proceedings, the same shall be refunded to him by
the Insurer within a period of two months from today.
15. The appeals stands disposed of in the in above terms.
16. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stands disposed
of.

(SANJIV BERRY)
JUDGE

Dated: 04.11.2026
Gyan
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
ii) Whether reportable? Yes
GYAN CHAND
2026.11.04 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document