(O&M) Suresh Kumar vs Arjun Singh And Ors

FAO-2064 of 2003 (O&M) &
FAO No.1791 of 2004 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-2064 of 2003 (O&M)
Reserved on: 15.10.2026
Pronounced on: 03.11.2026
Uploaded on: 04.11.2026
Harinder Singh (since deceased) through his legal representatives
...Appellants
Versus
Arjun Singh and others ...Respondents
AND
FAO No.1791 of 2004 (O&M)
Suresh Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Arjun Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMRINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present: Mr. Devyansh, Ms. Marvi Singh and
Mr. Nischal Chetanya Manchanda, Advocates,
for the appellant company (in FAO-2064-2003) and
for respondent No. 3 (in FAO-1791-2004).
Mr. Sunil Kumar Rohilla, Advocate, for
Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellant (in FAO-1791-2004).
for respondent No. 2 (in FAO-2064-2003).
None for respondent No. 1 (in both appeals).
NITIN
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.2064 of 2003 and
FAO No.1791 of 2004 2
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate,
for respondent-insurance company (in both appeals).
AMRINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of FAO No.2064 of 2003, filed by
Harinder Singh, the injured claimant, seeking enhancement of compensation,
and FAO No.1791 of 2004, filed by Suresh Kumar, owner of the offending
vehicle, challenging the award dated 03.03.2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
impugned award’) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in MACT Case No.170 of 1998.
Since both appeals arise out of the same award and involve overlapping
questions of fact and law, they are being decided together.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to
in this judgment by their status before the learned Tribunal. The facts have been
taken from the impugned award dated 03.03.2003 passed by the learned
Tribunal.
3. The facts, in brief, were that on 15.04.1998, Harinder Singh, the
claimant, who was working as a Junior Engineer with M/s Unitech Limited,
was inspecting the work relating to four-laning of the G.T. Road while
travelling in Jeep bearing registration No.HR-01D-9277. At about 2.30 p.m.,
when the said Jeep reached near Government High School, G.T. Road,
Shahabad, a Tata-709 vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1LB-3924,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) driven by Arjun Singh, the
driver, allegedly came at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and
struck against the Jeep. As a result of the impact, the claimant sustained
multiple injuries, including an open fracture of both bones of the left leg,
besides injuries on his face. He was initially taken to the Community Health
NITIN
Centre, Shahabad, and thereafter shifted to Dr. K.D. Sharma Hospital, Ambala,
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.2064 of 2003 and
FAO No.1791 of 2004 3
where he remained admitted from 15.04.1998 to 25.04.1998 and underwent
surgery.
4. Claiming that the accident had occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the claimant filed a petition under
Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of
₹5,00,000/- along with interest. The claim was contested by the respondents.
The driver was proceeded against ex parte. An FIR was registered in respect of
the accident against the driver, a challan was presented, and the driver was
facing trial. The owner, Suresh Kumar, and the Insurance Company contested
the claim, including on the question of negligence, quantum of compensation
and the validity of the driving licence allegedly held by the driver.
5. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, the learned
Tribunal, while deciding issue No.1 relating to negligence, held that the
accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending
Tata-709 vehicle by the driver. The learned Tribunal further held that the
vehicle was owned by Suresh Kumar (respondent No. 2) and was insured with
the Insurance Company. On the question of the driving licence, the learned
Tribunal concluded that the licence produced by the owner was not genuine and
that the driver did not hold a valid and effective driving licence on the date of
the accident. Consequently, while holding the driver and the owner liable, the
learned Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award in the
first instance, with the right to recover the amount from the insured-owner.
6. On the question of quantum, the Tribunal assessed the
compensation payable to the claimant at ₹50,000/-, comprising ₹30,000/-
towards medical expenses and other treatment-related expenditure and
₹20,000/- towards pain and suffering, mental agony, loss of amenities and
NITIN
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.2064 of 2003 and
FAO No.1791 of 2004 4
physical disability. The said amount was awarded with interest at the rate of 9%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
Aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation, the claimant preferred FAO
No.2064 of 2003. The owner also preferred FAO No.1791 of 2004, challenging
the findings recorded against him, particularly on negligence, quantum and the
right of recovery granted to the Insurance Company.
7. Learned counsel for the claimant, the appellant in FAO No.2064 of
2003, contended that the compensation of ₹50,000/- awarded by the learned
Tribunal is wholly inadequate, having regard to the nature and gravity of the
injuries. It was submitted that the claimant had sustained an open fracture of
both bones of the left leg, besides injuries on his cheek, mouth and face, was
operated upon, remained admitted in hospital for approximately eleven days,
and continued to suffer discomfort and physical restrictions even after
discharge. Referring to the medical bills (Ex.P-6, Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-10 to Ex.
P-53), it was argued that the learned Tribunal, despite noticing the bills,
awarded only ₹30,000/- towards medical expenses, though the claimant had
also been advised a further operation. It was further urged that nothing
meaningful was awarded towards transportation and special diet, as the
claimant had been advised to use a vehicle for follow-up hospital visits and to
take a high-protein diet, nor towards attendant charges, which could not be
denied merely because family members attended to him.
8. On the question of disability, learned counsel referred to certificate
Ex.P-5, proved through Dr. C.R. Khatri, PW-3, showing 17% physical
disability, including restriction in the movements of the left ankle and knee and
permanent shortening of the left lower limb by approximately 1.5 inches, and
submitted that the Tribunal failed to compensate the permanent impairment. It
NITIN
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.2064 of 2003 and
FAO No.1791 of 2004 5
was also contended that the claimant, a Junior Engineer with M/s Unitech
Limited earning ₹6,500/- per month, suffered loss of income during prolonged
treatment, for which nothing was awarded, and that the amount awarded
towards pain and suffering was grossly inadequate. Lastly, it was argued that
compensation must be just, fair and reasonable, taking into account not merely
the medical expenditure but also the pain, suffering and physical impairment
flowing from the accident.
9. Learned counsel for the owner, the appellant in FAO No.1791 of
2004, in his appeal contended that the Tribunal had erred in holding the driver
responsible for the accident. It was submitted that the claimant was travelling in
Jeep bearing registration No.HR-01D-9277, driven by Rajesh Kumar, whose
driver and owner had not been impleaded, and that the accident occurred due to
the negligence of the Jeep driver. It was argued that the mere registration of an
FIR and presentation of a challan could not establish rash and negligent driving
and that, in the absence of independent evidence, the finding of negligence was
based on conjectures and surmises. The compensation was also stated to be
excessive, as the learned Tribunal had not properly examined the expenditure
incurred and the 17% disability was not permanent in its entirety, the doctor
having stated that the restriction in movements could improve with
physiotherapy and medication.
10. On the question of the driving licence, it was argued that the
learned Tribunal had wrongly accepted the Insurance Company’s contention
that the licence produced by the owner was forged, as the driver possessed a
genuine licence issued by the Transport Authority, Delhi, as shown by
Annexures P-1 to P-3 obtained from the Motor Licensing Officer, Government
of NCT of Delhi, while the Insurance Company had relied upon the report
NITIN
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.2064 of 2003 and
FAO No.1791 of 2004 6
regarding another licence. It was contended that the owner had engaged a driver
holding a valid licence and had committed no breach of the policy, and that the
Insurance Company, having already paid the compensation to the claimant,
could not recover it from the owner. Learned counsel accordingly prayed that
the award be set aside.
11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company-respondent no.2
submitted that the licence produced by the owner was found to be fake on
verification from the issuing authority and, therefore, the learned Tribunal had
rightly granted it the right of recovery against the owner, and prayed for
dismissal of the appeal filed by the owner.
Per contra
12. , learned counsel for the claimant opposes the appeal
filed by the owner, i.e. FAO No. 1791 of 2004, whereas learned counsel for the
owner opposes the appeal filed by the claimant, i.e. FAO No. 2064 of 2003.
Both learned counsel pray for dismissal of the respective appeals filed by the
other party.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through
the entire record with their able assistance.
14. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the
learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the Tata-709 vehicle bearing registration No.DL-
1LB-3924 by the driver.
15. The contention raised on behalf of the owner that the FIR and the
subsequent challan, by themselves, are insufficient to establish negligence,
cannot be accepted as an absolute proposition. It is correct that registration of
an FIR is not, by itself, conclusive proof of negligence. However, the evidence
has to be appreciated as a whole, keeping in view the nature of proceedings
NITIN
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.2064 of 2003 and
FAO No.1791 of 2004 7
under the Motor Vehicles Act, which are intended to provide just compensation
to victims of road accidents. In the present case, the claimant was himself
travelling in the Jeep and sustained injuries in the accident. The learned
Tribunal, after considering the material placed before it, returned a finding that
the offending Tata-709 vehicle had caused the accident due to the rash and
negligent driving of Arjun Singh (respondent No. 1). The fact that the Jeep
driver was not impleaded does not, by itself, establish that the accident occurred
due to his negligence. The owner has not been able to demonstrate from the
material on record that the learned Tribunal’s finding is perverse or that the
evidence relied upon by it was wholly inadmissible or incapable of supporting
the conclusion reached.
16. The submission that the claimant was required to produce
independent evidence apart from the FIR also does not advance the case of the
owner. The learned Tribunal was required to assess the evidence on the
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not by applying the standard
of proof required in a criminal trial. The pendency of criminal proceedings or
the fact that the driver was facing trial was a relevant circumstance, though not
conclusive in itself. The finding of negligence has to be tested in the context of
the entire evidence and the circumstances of the accident.
17. No sufficient ground has been made out to displace the finding
recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No.1. Accordingly, the finding that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by the driver is affirmed.
18. The next question is whether the compensation of ₹50,000/-
awarded by the learned Tribunal adequately compensates the claimant for the
injuries suffered by him.
NITIN
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.2064 of 2003 and
FAO No.1791 of 2004 8
19. The record shows that the claimant sustained an open fracture of
both bones of the left leg, besides injuries on his face. He was taken to Dr. K.D.
Sharma Hospital, Ambala, where he remained admitted from 15.04.1998 to
25.04.1998 and underwent an operation on 16.04.1998. Dr. K.D. Sharma,
PW-4, deposed regarding the treatment provided to the claimant and the charges
raised by the hospital. The medical bills and other documents were also
produced by the claimant. The learned Tribunal itself noticed that the claimant
had incurred expenditure on medicines, implants, tests and other treatment-
related requirements. It, however, assessed the expenditure at ₹30,000/- after
scrutinising the bills and excluding those which were not found to relate to the
claimant.
20. The assessment of medical expenses by the learned Tribunal does
not call for wholesale interference merely because the claimant produced bills
for a higher amount. The learned Tribunal was justified in scrutinising the bills
and excluding those which did not establish expenditure incurred by the
claimant. The bills relating to another person could not have been accepted as
expenditure incurred by the claimant. At the same time, the nature of the
injuries, the surgery undergone and the period of treatment cannot be
overlooked while assessing the amount payable towards medical and incidental
expenses. As regards the claim for expenses towards a further operation,
although Dr. D.K. Sharma (PW-4) stated that the claimant might require another
operation and estimated its cost between ₹15,000/- and ₹20,000/-, no further
medical record, prescription or other documentary evidence has been produced
to establish the necessity of such operation or the expenditure likely to be
incurred. In the absence of corroborative material, this Court does not consider
it appropriate to award any separate amount under this head.
NITIN
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.2064 of 2003 and
FAO No.1791 of 2004 9
21. It is also evident from the statement of Dr. K.D. Sharma that the
claimant was advised to use a vehicle for hospital visits and to take a high-
protein diet. The claimant had to visit the hospital for follow-up treatment. In
such circumstances, some amount towards transportation and special diet is
clearly warranted. The fact that the claimant may not have preserved receipts
for every journey or every item of special diet cannot, by itself, disentitle him to
reasonable compensation under these heads. The amount has, however, to be
assessed on a reasonable and conservative basis, having regard to the period of
treatment and the material available on record.
22. The claimant has also sought compensation towards attendant
charges. The nature of the fracture, the surgical intervention and the period of
hospitalisation indicate that he would have required assistance during the initial
period of treatment and recovery. The assistance may have been provided by
family members nevertheless, the effort and services rendered by a family
member cannot be treated as having no monetary value. A reasonable amount
under this head is therefore justified.
23. The more question concerns the physical disability and its impact
upon the claimant’s earning capacity. The disability certificate Ex.P-5 records
17% physical disability. Dr. C.R. Khatri, PW-3, who proved the certificate,
explained that the disability included restriction in the movements of the left
ankle and knee and shortening of the left lower limb. In his cross-examination,
he clarified that the restriction in movements was temporary in nature and could
improve with physiotherapy and medication. The shortening of the left lower
limb by approximately 1.5 inches, however, was stated to be permanent.
24. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar , (2011) 1 SCC 343. The
NITIN
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.2064 of 2003 and
FAO No.1791 of 2004 10
Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly explained that the percentage of physical
disability assessed by a medical expert cannot automatically be equated with the
percentage of loss of earning capacity. The learned Tribunal is required to
examine the nature of the claimant’s work, the activities which he can still
perform, the activities which he can no longer perform and the actual effect of
the disability upon his earning capacity. The assessment must therefore be
functional and not merely medical.
25. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it
emerges that the claimant was working as a Junior Engineer. The nature of his
employment, as emerges from the record, did not involve strenuous physical
labour. More importantly, the claimant admitted in his cross-examination that
he was subsequently employed with M/s Pearl Builders, Bhanour, with effect
from 28.08.2001. This circumstance is relevant while assessing the effect of the
disability upon his earning capacity. The medical evidence does not establish
that the claimant became incapable of performing his professional duties or that
his earning capacity was reduced to the extent of 17%.
26. It is, therefore, not permissible to adopt the 17% medical disability
as 17% functional disability and calculate future loss of income mechanically.
The claimant’s continued employment, the nature of his professional work and
the doctor’s clarification that the restriction in movements was temporary have
to be considered. The permanent shortening of the lower limb undoubtedly
constitutes a physical impairment and would have consequences upon his
comfort, mobility and enjoyment of life. However, the evidence does not
establish a corresponding permanent loss of earning capacity.
27. The claimant has asserted that he was earning ₹6,500/- per month
at the time of the accident. However, no salary slip, appointment letter, wage
NITIN
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.2064 of 2003 and
FAO No.1791 of 2004 11
certificate or other documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate the
said figure. In the absence of such documentary proof, the income has to be
assessed on a reasonable basis, keeping in view the claimant’s employment as a
Junior Engineer and the circumstances brought on record. For the purpose of
assessing the loss of income during the period of treatment and recovery, his
monthly income is conservatively assessed at ₹4,000/-.
28. The claimant remained hospitalised for approximately eleven days,
from 15.04.1998 to 25.04.1998, and underwent surgery on 16.04.1998 for an
open fracture of both bones of the left leg. The medical evidence further
establishes that he required follow-up treatment and visited the hospital on five
occasions. Having regard to the nature of the fracture, the surgical intervention
and the period reasonably required for recovery, compensation towards loss of
income during the period when he was unable to attend his employment is
justified. Although the claimant asserted that he remained confined to bed for
approximately five months, the exact period of complete incapacity is not
established by reliable evidence. It is also borne out from the record that he
received his basic salary during the period of hospitalisation alone, and not for
the remaining period of recovery. In these circumstances, instead of accepting
the entire period claimed, this Court considers three months to be a reasonable
period for assessing the temporary loss of income. Accordingly, on the basis of
the monthly income assessed at ₹4,000/-, a sum of ₹12,000/- (₹4,000/- × 3
months) is awarded towards loss of income during treatment and recovery.
29. So far as medical expenses and treatment-related expenditure are
concerned, the claimant produced medical bills and receipts on record,
including the hospital bills (Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7) and the receipt (Ex.P-79) apart
from the bills relating to medicines, consultation, X-rays and laboratory tests
NITIN
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.2064 of 2003 and
FAO No.1791 of 2004 12
(Ex.P-10 to Ex.P-53). The evidence of Dr. K.D. Sharma (PW-4) also establishes
the treatment undergone by the claimant and the expenditure incurred in that
regard. However, the bills require scrutiny, as certain bills were found not to
pertain to the claimant. Having regard to the documentary evidence, the
expenditure proved and the treatment undergone, this Court assesses
compensation towards medical expenses and treatment-related expenditure at
₹30,000/-. Further, the claimant visited the hospital for follow-up treatment and
was advised to use a vehicle for such visits. Though he claimed to have incurred
taxi expenses, he admitted that he had not obtained or retained receipts for
payment of taxi fares. Nevertheless, having regard to the medical advice and the
follow-up visits established on record, a reasonable sum of ₹10,000/- is
awarded towards transportation. The claimant was also advised to take a high-
protein diet. Accordingly, a sum of ₹10,000/- is awarded towards special diet.
Having regard to the nature of injuries, surgery and period of recovery, a further
sum of ₹5,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges. These amounts are
awarded under the respective pecuniary heads.
30. The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon , (2022) 8 SCC 489, also deserves
consideration. The Supreme Court emphasised that compensation under non-
pecuniary heads must take into account the nature of injuries, prolonged
hospitalisation, operations, pain and suffering, and the effect of permanent
disability upon the amenities of life. The decision, however, concerned a
claimant who had suffered 100% permanent disability. Its quantum cannot be
transplanted to the present case, where the claimant has suffered 17% physical
disability and has continued in employment. The principles governing just
NITIN
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.2064 of 2003 and
FAO No.1791 of 2004 13
compensation and the assessment of non-pecuniary loss, nevertheless, remain
relevant.
31. In the present case, the claimant suffered an open fracture of both
bones of the left leg, underwent surgery and remained admitted in hospital for
approximately eleven days. He also suffered injuries on his face and had to
undergo follow-up treatment. The permanent shortening of the left lower limb is
an enduring physical impairment. Even though the evidence does not establish a
corresponding loss of earning capacity, the claimant cannot be denied
compensation for the pain, discomfort, physical inconvenience and loss of
amenities occasioned by such impairment. The amount of ₹20,000/- awarded by
the learned Tribunal under the combined head of pain and suffering, mental
agony, loss of amenities and physical disability is, in the circumstances,
inadequate. This Court accordingly assesses compensation at ₹40,000/- under
the non-pecuniary heads, collectively towards pain and suffering, mental agony,
loss of amenities and the consequences of permanent physical impairment.
32. In view of the foregoing discussion, the claimant is held entitled to
a total compensation of ₹1,07,000/-, comprising ₹67,000/- under the pecuniary
heads (₹30,000/- towards medical expenses and treatment-related expenditure +
₹12,000/- towards loss of income during treatment and recovery + ₹10,000/-
towards transportation + ₹10,000/- towards special diet + ₹5,000/- towards
attendant charges) and ₹40,000/- under the non-pecuniary heads (towards pain
and suffering, mental agony, loss of amenities and permanent physical
impairment). The reassessed compensation is accordingly tabulated as under:
Head Amount
Medical expenses and treatment-related expenditure ₹30,000/-
Loss of income during treatment and recovery ₹12,000/-
Transportation ₹10,000/-
Special diet ₹10,000/-
NITIN
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.2064 of 2003 and
FAO No.1791 of 2004 14
Head Amount
Attendant charges ₹5,000/-
Pain and suffering, mental agony and loss of amenities,
₹40,000/-
including permanent physical impairment
Total ₹1,07,000/-
33. Thus, as against ₹50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the
claimant is held entitled to total compensation of ₹1,07,000/-. The
enhancement comes to ₹57,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till
its realisation. The amount already paid or deposited shall be adjusted.
34. The challenge raised by the owner requires consideration on two
aspects: first, the finding of negligence; and second, the direction permitting
the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the
owner on account of the driver not holding a valid and effective driving
licence. The contention of the owner that the compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal is excessive stands rejected in view of the reassessment
made above, whereby the compensation has, in fact, been found to be
inadequate.
35. The finding on negligence has already been examined above and
no ground for interference has been made out. The fact that the Jeep driver was
not impleaded does not, by itself, absolve the driver of the offending vehicle
from liability. The owner has not produced material sufficient to establish that
the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the Jeep driver. The
challenge to the finding on negligence is, therefore, rejected.
36. Coming to the driving licence, the learned Tribunal considered the
evidence of the owner, Suresh Kumar, RW-1, and Mohinder Kumar, RW-2,
Clerk, Licensing Authority, Loharu. The owner produced a photocopy of the
NITIN
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.2064 of 2003 and
FAO No.1791 of 2004 15
driving licence allegedly held by the driver as Ex.R-1, along with the
registration certificate, route permit and insurance policy. He asserted that the
vehicle was a light motor vehicle and that the driver was authorised to drive it.
37. On the other hand, Mohinder Kumar, RW-2, deposed that no
driving licence had been issued by the Licensing Authority, Loharu, in the name
of the driver. He further stated that the licence numbers in the relevant register
had been issued to other persons and that the document produced by the owner
had neither been issued nor renewed by the said Licensing Authority. The
verification report, Ex.R-5, was also relied upon by the Insurance Company.
The Tribunal, after considering the testimony of RW-2 and the verification
report, concluded that the licence produced by the owner was fake and forged.
38. Learned counsel for the owner has sought to rely upon the
subsequent documents obtained from the Transport Department, Government of
NCT of Delhi, namely Annexures P-1 to P-3. The contention is that the driver
possessed another genuine driving licence issued by the Transport Authority,
Delhi, which had been renewed on 17.06.2002 and was valid up to 16.06.2005.
It is argued that the Insurance Company had relied upon the verification of the
licence issued by the Licensing Authority, Loharu, while suppressing the
existence of the Delhi licence.
39. The said submission has been considered. The documents relied
upon by the owner disclose a licence issued by the Delhi Transport Authority
and its renewal on 17.06.2002 for the period up to 16.06.2005. However, the
material as placed before this Court does not, by itself, establish that the said
licence was valid and effective on the date of the accident, i.e. 15.04.1998. The
fact that a licence stood renewed in June 2002 cannot, without the underlying
NITIN
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.2064 of 2003 and
FAO No.1791 of 2004 16
record showing its original date of issue and validity, establish that the driver
was authorised to drive the offending vehicle four years earlier.
40. The owner was required to establish that the driver held a valid and
effective driving licence at the time when the vehicle was entrusted to him and
on the date of the accident. A subsequent renewal or the production of a
different licence, without proof of its validity on the relevant date, does not
displace the specific evidence led by the Insurance Company regarding the
licence produced as Ex.R-1. The owner has also not brought on record the
original licensing record of the Delhi Transport Authority establishing the
relevant period of validity.
41. The legal position regarding the burden upon the Insurance
Company and the consequences of breach of policy conditions has been
considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Limited v. Swaran Singh , (2004) 3 SCC 297. The insurer is required to
establish the breach of the policy condition; a mere technical defect or the
absence of a licence, without more, does not automatically absolve the insurer
in relation to third-party liability. At the same time, where the insurer
establishes that the driver did not hold a valid and effective driving licence and
the insured-owner has failed to establish the requisite care in entrusting the
vehicle, the insurer may be entitled to recover the amount paid to the third party
from the insured, in accordance with law.
42. In the present case, the Insurance Company led evidence through
RW-2, the official of the Licensing Authority, Loharu, and produced the
verification report, Ex.R-5. The owner, despite having produced the photocopy
of the alleged licence as Ex.R-1, did not establish its genuineness. The
subsequent Delhi licence material does not establish its validity on 15.04.1998.
NITIN
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.2064 of 2003 and
FAO No.1791 of 2004 17
The owner has also not produced material to show that he had verified the
genuineness and validity of the licence before entrusting the vehicle to the
driver.
43. The mere assertion that the owner had engaged a driver who
appeared to possess a licence is not sufficient in the facts of this case,
particularly when the document produced by the owner was found, upon
verification from the issuing authority, not to have been issued by that authority.
The owner has failed to establish that he exercised reasonable care and satisfied
himself that the driver possessed a valid and effective licence.
44. The argument that the Insurance Company had concealed a
genuine licence also cannot be accepted in the absence of reliable evidence
establishing that the Delhi licence was valid on the date of the accident. The
material relied upon by the owner, at best, establishes the existence of a licence
which was renewed in 2002. It does not establish the driver’s entitlement to
drive the vehicle on 15.04.1998. The finding of the Tribunal that the owner
committed a breach of the policy condition, therefore, does not warrant
interference.
45. The Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award
in the first instance and granted it the right to recover the amount from the
owner. Having regard to the evidence regarding the invalid licence and the
failure of the owner to establish due care, the said direction is legally
sustainable. The fact that the Insurance Company has already paid the
compensation to the claimant does not extinguish its right to recover the amount
from the insured where such right has been established.
46. Consequently, the challenge raised by the owner to the finding on
negligence, the finding regarding breach of the insurance policy and the
NITIN
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.2064 of 2003 and
FAO No.1791 of 2004 18
consequential right of recovery granted to the Insurance Company is devoid of
merit.
47. For the reasons recorded above, FAO No.2064 of 2003 filed by the
claimant, Harinder Singh, is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is enhanced from ₹50,000/- to ₹1,07,000/-. The enhanced amount of
₹57,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till realisation, subject to adjustment of the amount
already paid or deposited. The enhanced amount shall be payable to the legal
representatives of the deceased claimant.In FAO No.1791 of 2004 filed by the
owner, Suresh Kumar, is dismissed. The finding of the learned Tribunal
regarding negligence and the direction permitting the Insurance Company to
recover the amount paid to the claimant from the owner are affirmed.
48. The remaining terms of the award, except to the extent modified
herein, shall remain unaltered. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed
of accordingly.
49. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
50. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the other
connected case.
03.11.2026 (AMRINDER SINGH GREWAL)
nitin JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No
NITIN
2026.11.04 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document