A genuine driving licence defeats the insurer’s defence based on the driver’s separate fake licence.

The appeals arose from the same road accident on 21 January 2015, involving a van and a truck driven by Mukhter Hussain.

The parents of Anil Kumar and the dependants of van driver Rakesh Kumar brought separate compensation claims before the Jammu and Samba Tribunals, respectively.

In both proceedings, the insurer argued that Mukhter Hussain lacked a valid and effective driving licence.

An ARTO, Anantnag record keeper testified that licence No. 6373/MVD/A/J was issued to another person, and was not issued to Mukhter Hussain.

Mukhter Hussain produced a second licence, No. JK0320060006373, issued by the ARTO, Doda, with a transport-vehicle endorsement; the Jammu Tribunal verified it as genuine.

The Tribunals rejected the insurer’s licence-based defence and made compensation awards of Rs. 13,19,600 and Rs. 13,55,000, respectively.

The insurer appealed both awards.

1. Whether the insurer established that Mukhter Hussain did not hold a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, so as to avoid liability under the insurance policy

2. Whether the driver’s possession of one fake licence, despite also holding a genuine and effective licence, justified setting aside the Tribunals’ findings on the insurer’s liability

The Court referred to Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, observing that possession of two driving licences may contravene that provision.

Its reasoning proceeded on the basis that, in these cases, the existence of a fake licence did not establish that the driver lacked a valid and effective licence where a separate genuine licence covering the relevant vehicle class was verified.

The evidence showed that the Anantnag licence was not issued to Mukhter Hussain and was fake, but the driver also produced a separate Doda licence that the Jammu Tribunal verified as genuine.

That licence authorised him to drive light motor vehicles and was endorsed for transport vehicles, with validity extending to 23 April 2022.

The Court held that, although holding two licences might expose the driver to prosecution under Section 6, it did not negate the genuine licence’s validity at the time of the accident.

The insurer therefore failed to establish a breach of the policy terms on the ground that the driver lacked an effective licence.

It found no ground to interfere with either Tribunal’s award and dismissed both appeals as without merit.