Sakeela And Anr. vs Balwinder Singh And Ors.
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
SAKEELA AND OTHERS ....Appellants
Versus
BALWINDER SINGH AND ORS. ..... Respondents
1. Judgment reserved on 20.07.2026
2. Judgment pronounced on 11.09.2026
3. Judgment uploaded on 15.09.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced Full
or whether the full judgment is pronounced.
5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judgment Nil
and reason thereof.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate
for cross-objector.
Notice to respondent No.1 dispensed with.
Mr. P.S. Miglani, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. A perusal of the Award shows that the driver and owner have been
held liable to pay the compensation, whereas the Insurance Company has been
directed to satisfy the award at the first instance but has been given the right to
recover the same from the insured/owner. The Insurance Company is already
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.15 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
- 2 -
represented by its counsel and therefore, there is no necessity to issue notice to
respondent No.1 who is the driver of the offending vehicle and issuance of notice
to him is dispensed with.
2. The appeal bearing No.FAO-2965-2003 has been instituted by the
claimants for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 20.03.2003
passed by MACT, Karnal ( for short “Tribunal” ) in MACT case No.82 of 2000 in
a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short ‘Act’ ) vide
which a sum of Rs.2,81,500/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till realization on account of death of Mohammad Manjur in a motor
vehicle accident.
3. Cross-objections bearing No.XOBJC-81-CII-2008 have been
instituted by the owner/respondent No.2 against the finding of the Tribunal that
the driving licence produced by the driver was fake and insurance company has
been exonerated of its liability to indemnify the insured. However, the insurance
company has been directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants
but it has been given the liberty to recover the same from the insured/owner.
4. It is pertinent to mention that the cross-objections have been filed by
the owner in an appeal instituted by the claimants and a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 23.04.2016 has held that there can be no cross-objections
by an owner against co-respondent/insurer but the said technical objection
regarding maintainability was not allowed and cross-objections were ordered to be
treated as an independent appeal.
5. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.15 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
- 3 -
1. Whether Mohammad Manjur died in a roadside vehicular
accident which had occurred on 15.6.2000 in the area of Police
Station Civil Lines, Karnal on account of rash or negligent driving of
truck No.PBP-5151 by respondent No.1?OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the claimants are entitled to be
compensated for the death of Mohammad Manjur in the above
accident, if so to what extent and by whom? OPP
3. Whether respondent No.1 Balwinder Singh was not holding a
valid driving licence while driving the offending vehicle, if so, its
effect? OPR3
4. Relief.
6. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.
7. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file,
learned Tribunal awarded the compensation as mentioned in para No.5 of this
judgment.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The
material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.
9. The first issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates
to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the
manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal
has already held under Issue No.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending
truck bearing No.PBP-5151, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with
respondent No.3.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award
vide which compensation of Rs.2,81,500/- has been awarded is based on
conjectures and surmises and is liable to be modified and enhanced amount of
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.15 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
- 4 -
compensation should be awarded. Learned counsel contends that income of the
deceased has been assessed on lower side to which future prospects have not been
added contrary to settled provisions of law. Learned counsel next contends that the
compensation awarded under conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of
estate and funeral expenses is on the lower side and he prayed that compensation
be suitably enhanced under all these heads. In support of his contentions, learned
counsel for the appellants has relied upon 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and
others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another , 2017 (16) SCC 680
National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other , 2018 (4) R.C.R.
(Civil) 333 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru
Ram & Others , (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Satinder Kaur.
11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/cross-objector argued
that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability
to indemnify the insured on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence and that the licence produced by him was fake. Learned
counsel contended that the said finding is contrary to the evidence on record and is
legally unsustainable. It is further argued that the Insurance Company had failed to
establish any conscious or wilful breach of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy on the part of the insured. Learned counsel submitted that even if
the driving licence produced by the driver was found to be fake, the same by itself
would not absolve the Insurance Company of its statutory liability unless a wilful
breach on the part of the insured is established. Accordingly, it has been prayed
that the direction granting recovery rights to the Insurance Company against the
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.15 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
- 5 -
insured/owner be set aside.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-
Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding that the
driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and that the licence
produced by him was fake. Learned counsel next contended that the Insurance
Company had examined RW1-Sukhjeet Singh, Junior Assistant from the office of
DTO, Sangrur, who had produced the relevant record and deposed that driving
licence No.4225/R/98 has not been issued in favour of respondent No.1 and the
Tribunal has rightly relied upon the report of the DTO, Sangrur and the testimony
of RW1 and has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company while directing it to
satisfy the award in the first instance and to recover the amount from the
insured/owner.
13. The term `just compensation’ has been elaborated by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 867 (SC), Syed Basheer Ahamed and
Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another , and it has been held that while assessing
compensation in a motor accident claims case, the Tribunal should award
compensation which appears to be just. The expression “which appears to be just”
vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of
compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower
the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled
principles relating to determination of compensation. It has been further held that
although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as
a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be
punitive to the persons liable to pay compensation and that determination of
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.15 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
- 6 -
compensation must be based on certain data establishing reasonable nexus
between the loss incurred by the victim or dependents. It has been further held that
misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factors for
determining the compensation. As such, compensation is required to be assessed
by taking into consideration above-said parameters.
14. The present claim petition was instituted by the wife and father of
deceased namely Mohammad Manjur, who had died in the accident in question,
which took place on 15.06.2000.
15. As per version of claimants, deceased was a labourer and used to earn
Rs.5000/- to Rs.6000/- per month. However, the Tribunal held that deceased being
a daily-wager must be earning Rs.2,000/- per month and his national income was
taken as Rs.2,000/-, out of which 1/3rd amount was deducted towards personal
expenses and loss of dependency was assessed as Rs.16,000/- per annum. As per
post-mortem Ex. P2, deceased was 22-23 years of age and multiplier of 17 was
applied to the loss of dependency and total loss of dependency was assessed as
Rs.2,72,000/- to which a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and
Rs.4,500/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate were added and total
compensation of Rs.2,81,500/- was awarded.
16. However, the income of the deceased has not been adequately
assessed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, Chandra alias Chander
alias Chanda Ram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav , has held that merely
because claimants are unable to produce documentary evidence to show the
monthly income of the deceased is not a ground to discard the oral evidence and in
such cases, the Court is required to ensure just compensation based on
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.15 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
- 7 -
preponderance of probabilities. Minimum wage notification may serve as a
yardstick but cannot be the sole basis for assessing the income. Moreover, it is also
well settled that where the victim/deceased belongs to unorganized sector, strict
proof of income is not mandatory and notional income can be reasonably assessed
based on the social status and facts and circumstances of the case. In the present
case, the accident had taken place on 15.6.2000 and as such, some amount of
guess work has to be applied while assessing the monthly income of the deceased
and it can be assumed that deceased must have been earning atleast Rs.2,500/- per
month in the year 2000. Accordingly, income of the deceased is taken as
Rs.2,500/- per month.
17. Tribunal has held that deceased was 22-23 years of age and as such,
40% amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards
future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which
takes his income to Rs.3,500/-.
18. The present claim petition was instituted by wife and father of
deceased namely Mohammad Manjur, who died in the accident in question. As per
law laid down in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 309, Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok
Kushwaha & Ors , father has to be treated as financially dependent upon his
deceased son. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind two dependents
and as such, 1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses of deceased as per law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and
after deducting the same, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to
Rs.2,333/- (Rs.3,500/- – Rs.1,167/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes
out to Rs.27,996/- (Rs.2,333/- × 12) to which multiplier of 18 has to be applied in
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.15 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
- 8 -
view of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) , and after
applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs.5,03,928/-
(Rs.27,996/- × 18) .
19. In addition to this, claimant No.1 (wife of the deceased) is held
entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/-
towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on
account of funeral expenses, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra).
Likewise, claimants No.2 (father of the deceased) is also held entitled to a sum
of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of filial consortium, in view of law laid down in
Nanu Ram’s case (supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case (supra) , which takes the
compensation to Rs.6,13,928/- .
20. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is
assessed as under:-
S. No. Heads Amount
1. Age of deceased 22-23 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.2,500/-
3. Monthly income after addition of 40% Rs.3,500/-
future prospects
4. Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal Rs.1,167/-
and living expenses
5. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.2,333/-
6. Annual loss of dependency (Rs.2,333/- × Rs.27,996/-
12)
7. Multiplier 18
8. Loss of dependency (Rs.27,996/- × 18) Rs.5,03,928/-
9. Compensation under conventional heads Rs.70,000/-
to claimant No.1 (wife)
10. Loss of filial consortium to claimant Rs.40,000/-
No.2 (father)
11. Total compensation Rs.6,13,928/-
12. Interest 9%
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.15 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
- 9 -
21. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.3,32,428/-
(Rs.6,13,928/ - - Rs.2,81,500/-) (rounded off to Rs.3,32,000/-).
Issue of liability
22. Learned Tribunal while exonerating the insurance company on the
ground that the licence produced by driver was fake has held as under:-
“14. Respondent No.3 had taken a specific plea in its written statement
that the respondent No. 1. was not holding a valid driving licence at the
time of accident. To substantiate its above claim it had examined Sukhijeet
Singh, Junior Assistant from office above claim had examined District
Transport Officer (Sangrur) as RW1. He testified that the report Ex. R1
was issued by their office. According to this report the licence
No.4225/R/98 was not issued to any body. The things did not end here.
That witness was asked to furnish the record of licence bearing old
No.5151. Having searched the record he again made his statement that no
such licence was ever Issued in the name of Balwinder Singh. The above
report was called pertaining to the licence, the photo copy of which was
produced by respondent No.1. Even respondent No.1. did not bother to
counter the testimony of this RWI and the report Ex.R1. Therefore, an
adverse inference has to be drawn against him. Accordingly I hold that
respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the
accident.
15. As a resume of my foregoing discussion the respondent No.1 is taken to
be driving the offending vehicle in contravention of the terms of Insurance
policy Ex.R2 according to which the insured vehicle could only be driven
by a person holding a valid driving licence. When terms of this insurance
policy have been contravened by the Insured, respondent No.2, by
entrusting the insured vehicle to respondent No.1 who was not holding a
valid driving licence certainly respondent No.3 was not liable to
compensate the claimants on behalf of respondent No.2 the Insured. But as
per the latest authority of the Apex Court reported as New India Assurance
Co. Simla Vs. Kamla & Ors etc (2001-1) The Punjab Law Reporter 830 the
amount of compensation and the Interest awarded to the claimants in this
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.15 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
- 10 -
petition at present shall be paid by respondent No.3 but it shall have a
right to recover the same from respondent No.2. This issue stands disposed
of accordingly.”
23. During pendency of appeal, cross-objections have been filed by the
owner/insured to the effect that the driving licence produced by the driver was not
fake and it was genuine and a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 23.04.2016
allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for leading additional
evidence in this regard. A report was sought from the Tribunal and parties were
given opportunity to lead evidence before the Tribunal. Thereafter, report has been
received and while leading additional evidence, the insured has examined RW2-
Jagpreet Singh, Clerk DTO Office, Sangrur, who deposed that original driving
licence No.5152/SGR and renewal entry No.4225/R/98 is registered in the name
of Sh. Balvinder Singh, son of Sh. Chota Singh (respondent No.1). This licence
has been renewed for LMV/MTV and HTV from 2.9.1998 to 1.8.2001 and he
tendered certified copy of said record Ex.RW2/A. During cross-examination, he
admitted that the entry of Ex. RW2/A has not been prepared in his presence. He
also admitted that entries of driving licenses renewal No.4218/R/98 to 4230/R/98
in respect of all the persons have been made on Form No.10 and original
photograph of the applicants in whose favour driving licenses have been issued
have been pasted on Form No.10 which also bears stamp of DTO Sangrur. He also
admitted that as per record of previous entries of driving licence No.4128/R/98 to
4224/R/98 and 4226/R/98 to 4230/R/98, the entries of these driving licenses are
mentioned on Form No.10 which have been typed and stamps of DTO, Sangrur
have been affixed but on driving licence No.4225/R/98 Ex. RW2/A, neither
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.15 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
- 11 -
particulars of driving licence have been typed on Form No.10, nor original
photograph has been pasted and only photocopy of driving licence has been pasted
which bears the stamp of Licensing Authority, MV Sangrur. He also admitted that
there is no signature of any officer on the stamp of MV Sangrur. He also admitted
that photocopy of driving licence of Balvinder Singh pasted on this page bears old
No.5151 and the stamp of renewal mentioned on this photocopy bears old
No.5152. When further cross-examined, he stated that he cannot tell whether
record of old driving licenses No.5151 and 5152 exists or not and their years of
issuance have not been mentioned. He admitted that signatures on photocopy of
DL as well as signatures below the stamp of Licensing Authority Sangrur were not
made in his presence and he has not identified signatures of the official who had
signed the same. He further stated that he has seen report Ex. R1 already placed on
file and as per report of DTO, Sangrur, DL No.4225/R/98 was not renewed by this
authority. He tendered photocopies of Form 10 of DL No.4218/R/98 to 4224/R/98
and 4226/R/98 to 4230/R/98 Mark A to Mark L, whose originals were also
produced. He denied the suggestion that photocopy of driving licence of Balvinder
Singh has been pasted in the record later on, only to help him in the claim case or
that same is a false and fabricated document.
24. A perusal of Forms No.10 of all the driving licenses from Serial
No.4218/R/98 to 4224/R/98 and 4226/R/98 to 4230/R/98 Mark A to Mark L
shows that the particulars of the persons who had been issued driving licenses
have been mentioned on a typed form having two clauses i.e. clause 1 (a to c) and
clause 2 (a to j) with the complete details of their name, father’s name, address,
category of vehicle for which licence has been issued, date of issuance and its
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.15 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
- 12 -
expiry and when the same have been subsequently renewed and the original
photograph of the licence holders have been pasted on all these Forms. However,
in respect of respondent No.1, photocopy of his driving licence has been affixed
on Form No.10 and his particulars have not been entered and there is no clause 1
(a to c) and clause 2 (a to j). It is pertinent to mention that the entry on Form
No.10 is made before the driving licence is issued and on the basis of the same,
the driving licence is separately prepared and issued to the holder, whereas the
copy of licence has been affixed on form No.10 which has been tendered as Ex.
RW2/A, which shows that the same has been subsequently pasted. RW2 has also
admitted that as per record, entries of these driving licenses have been mentioned
on Form No.10 which have been typed and same bears stamp of DTO Sangrur but
in the case of driving licence of respondent No.1 at serial No.4225/R/98,
particulars of driving licence have not been typed on Form No.10 and original
photograph has also not been affixed and only photocopy of driving licence has
been pasted. Besides this, the licence Ex. RW2/A also shows that its old number is
mentioned as 5151 but on the renewal stamp, the old number is mentioned as
5152, which is a material discrepancy and raises doubt about genuineness of this
licence.
25. During pendency of claim petition, the insurance company had
examined RW1-Sukhjeet Singh, Junior Assistant, from the office of DTO Sangrur
who had brought the original record and deposed that licence bearing
No.4225/R/98 has not been issued in favour of any person as per their record. He
stated that entry of this licence was made in their record but the same was
cancelled and he does not know the reason for cancellation. He also admitted that
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.15 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
- 13 -
in this register, on the relevant page in which alleged entry was made, the
photocopy of driving licence was pasted, as is evident from the signs appearing on
this page and same appears to have been removed after pasting. He admitted that
this number was not given to any other licence as subsequent licence was issued to
one Bakshish Singh bearing No.4226 and licence No.4224 was issued in favour of
one Kewal Krishan. During further cross-examination, he stated that old number
written on the top of the entry in their register is 5152/DTO Sangrur but he denied
the suggestion that it was wrongly mentioned, inadvertently as the old number of
licence of respondent No.1 was 5151. Thereafter, he was directed to produce the
record of driving licence No.5151 and his cross-examination was deferred. On
20.03.2003, he again appeared and produced entire record of the driving licences
issued since the year 1994 onwards. He stated that he had searched the entry
pertaining to licence No.5151 but no licence against above entry was found to
have been issued in favour of Balvinder Singh. He further stated that the old
number which is mentioned as 5152 DTO Sangrur was not issued in the name of
Balvinder Singh as per their record. As such, said record was produced when
RW1 was examined but subsequently, photocopy of the driving licence has been
pasted in the record of Form No.10, which has been tendered as Ex. RW2/A.
However, there is no record of previous licence No.5151 or 5152 to establish that
same had been issued in favour of respondent No.1. In these circumstances, the
only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the driving licence produced
by respondent No.1 was not genuine and there is thus no reason to take a contrary
view and Tribunal has also rightly held so while returning finding on issue No.3,
which is accordingly affirmed.
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.15 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
- 14 -
26. However, even if it is assumed that the driving licence produced by
the driver was fake, still insurance company is required to establish willful breach
of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured before it can be
exonerated of the liability to indemnify the insured. Hon’ble Supreme Court in
2022 ACJ 1868, Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Company Limited
and others, has held that owner of the vehicle is expected to check driving skills of
the driver and not to run to the licensing authority to verify genuineness of the
driving licence before appointing a driver and therefore, once the owner is
satisfied that driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from him
to verify genuineness of the driving licence issued to the driver and the direction
of ‘pay and recover’ given by the High Court was set aside and it was held that
Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured and it cannot recover the
amount from the owner/insured.
27. Besides this, Honble Supreme Court in (6) 2023 SCC online SC
1398, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. Geeta Devi and
Others has observed in paragraphs No.14 and 16 as under:-
14. More recently, in Ram Chandra Singh v. Rajaram and Others , the issue
before this Court was whether an insurance company could be absolved of
liability on the ground that the insured vehicle was being driven by a
person who did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.
This Court found that no attempt was made to ascertain whether the owner
was aware of the fake driving licence possessed by the driver, and held
that it is only if the owner was aware that the licence was fake, but still
permitted such driver to drive the vehicle, that the insurer would stand
absolved. It was unequivocally held that the mere fact that the driving
licence was fake, per se, would not absolve the insurer.
16.As already pointed out supra, once a seemingly valid driving licence is
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.15 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
- 15 -
produced by a person employed to drive a vehicle, unless such licence is
demonstrably fake on the face of it, warranting any sensible employer to
make inquiries as to its genuineness, or when the period of the licence has
already expired, or there is some other reason to entertain a genuine doubt
as to its validity, the burden is upon the insurance company to prove that
there was a failure on the part of the vehicle owner in carrying out due
diligence apropos such driving licence before employing that person to
drive the vehicle. Presently, no evidence has been placed on record
whereby an inference could be drawn that the deceased vehicle owner
ought to have gotten Ujay Pal's driving licence verified. Therefore, it was
for the petitioner-insurance company to prove wilful breach on the part of
the said vehicle owner. As no such exercise was undertaken, the petitioner-
insurance company would have no right to recover the compensation
amount from the present owners of the vehicle.
28. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Law Finder Doc ID # 2790918,
Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. And
others, has also held that owner of the vehicle is not expected to verify the
authenticity of the driving licence from the licensing authority and he can only
rely upon the licence produced by the prospective driver seeking employment. In
case, Insurance Company seeks to avoid liability or to get “pay and recover rights”
against the insured/owner on the ground of driving licence being fake, the
Insurance Company must establish that the breach was on the part of the insured,
meaning thereby, the insured had deliberately committed a breach by entrusting
the vehicle to a driver who had a fake driving licence or that the owner did not
employ due diligence at the time of handing over the vehicle. It has been further
held that in the absence of pleading or substantiation that owner allowed the driver
to drive a vehicle knowing the licence to be fake, or failed to employ due diligence
in the driver’s employment/entrustment, the High Court erred in issuing pay and
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.15 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
- 16 -
recover directions against the insured-owner. It has been further held that
Insurance Company must prove the willful breach of the policy condition i.e.
entrusting the vehicle to a driver without a valid licence by the insured in case it
wants right of recovery against the insured, even if the driver’s licence is fake.
29. In the present case also, Insurance Company has failed to establish
that there was wilful default on the part of the insured and breach of terms and
conditions of the Insurance Policy on account of the insured handing over the
vehicle to a person despite being aware about the fake driving licence. In these
circumstances, Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability to indemnify
the insured and it cannot recover the awarded amount from the owner/insured.
Accordingly, finding of Issue No.3 is not sustainable and same is reversed.
30. As a result of afore-said discussion, the present appeal is partly
accepted with costs while Cross-Objections bearing XOBJC-81-CII-2008 filed by
respondent No.2-owner are allowed with costs and it is held that the insurance
company is liable to indemnify the insured and the liability to pay the entire
compensation to the claimants shall be of respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and
severally.
31. The claimants are held entitled to enhanced compensation of
Rs.3,32,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition, i.e. 07.08.2000, till realization, payable by respondents
No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of
1,00,000/- along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.2 (father of
the deceased) while remaining amount be paid to claimant No.1 (wife of the
deceased) along with proportionate interest.
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.15 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2965-2003 (O&M) &
XOBJC-81-CII-2008 (O&M)
- 17 -
32. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of this judgment
to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on
16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued
under Clause (F) of the said judgment.
33. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
CM-21181-CII-2023
34. Present application has been filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil
Procedure seeking permission for the release of the land of cross-objector from the
attachment.
35. Since the insurance company has been held liable to indemnify the
insured, the property owned by owner which has been attached in execution
proceedings is ordered to be released.
36. Application stands allowed accordingly.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
11.09.2026 JUDGE
amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.15 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment