Fake licence of driver – Liability of owner -- Once due care and caution has been exercised by the owner of the vehicle while engaging services of the driver, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability to indemnify the owner on the ground that the driver is not holding a valid driving licence unless it is to be proved that the owner was aware that the licence was fake and he still permitted the driver to continue to drive the vehicle -- In cross examination RTO/RW-2 stated that possibility of record going missing from the computer due to a virus cannot be ruled out and that earlier the record pertaining to the same was manual and the record has not so far been updated in the computers -- Offending vehicle was otherwise, validly insured – Appeal at the instance of insurance company, dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2020

Due care by owner -- Once the basic care of verifying the driving licence has to be taken by the employer, though a detailed enquiry may not be necessary, the owner of the vehicle would know the validity of the driving licence as is set out in the licence itself -- Appellant-owner showed gross negligence in verifying the same -- Appellant has to, thus, bear responsibility and consequent liability of permitting the driver to drive with an expired licence over a period of three years.

(SC) Decided on: 23.09.2020

Invalid driving license – Onus of proof – Recovery right -- Driving license issued to less than 18 years of age in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of Act, 1988 – Driving licence was renewed for the first time only after the accident had taken place – License was invalid at the time of its issuance -- Renewal is of no consequence – Driver is son of the owner – It cannot said that appellant-father was not in knowledge about the fact that his son obtained driving licence when he was underage -- Insurer discharged his burden by establishing that appellants intentionally committed breach of insurance policy – Recovery rights given by Tribunal to Insurance company – Appeal by owner/driver dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.06.2020

Validity of Driving License from Nagaland – Submission by insurance company that since driver belongs to Amritsar, he was not competent to submit an application before an authority in Nagaland for issuance of licence -- Insurance company did not call upon driver of the vehicle to appear in the witness box to explain the circumstances under which he obtained licence from an authority in Nagaland – Held, insurance company cannot be heard to say that he was either not resident of Nagaland or could not obtain a licence from an authority at Kohima.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.09.2019

Driving licence from Nagaland not on smart card – Notification by the State of Nagaland that such like licences would be deemed to be cancelled unless obtained in smart card – Insurance company did not examine any witness from the concerned licensing authority to prove that licence in question was not issued by the said authority – Held, if the driver had not obtained a licence in smart card form and drives a vehicle in the State of Nagaland, he may be challaned for non-possessing of a valid licence in that State but that fact ipso facto does not prove that the driver was not duly licensed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2019

Gratuitous Passengers in Goods Vehicle – Claimants are young children who have suffered permanent disability -- Principle of “pay and recover” should be invoked – Insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimants and shall have the right to realize the said amount of compensation from driver and owner of the vehicle.

(SC) Decided on: 09.08.2019

Gratuitous Passengers – Unpaid/Gratuitous Passengers in private passenger cars/pillion rider on motor cycle are required to be compulsorily covered under Compulsory Insurance -- Passengers carried for hire or reward in public service vehicles has always been covered under the Compulsory Insurance qua third party -- Claim of paid/non-Gratuitous Passengers in private passenger car is excluded due to this being a defense available to Insurance Company under the Section 149 of the New Act -- Even in case of Goods Carriage' the concept of Gratuitous Passengers does not survive anymore -- In their case also it is carrying the passengers, per se, whether Gratuitous or paid, which is not permissible -- Hence the distinction of Gratuitous Passenger is no more any plea in case of Goods Carriage as well -- The concept of 'Gratuitous Passengers' does not survive under the New Motor Vehicle Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

Duty of owner – Owner/RW3 made a categoric statement that he had seen the driving licence of driver before he was appointed – He has stated that 90 people were working for him and regular accounts were maintained by them and they had also taken the driving test of the driver before his engagement – Held, owner is not required to make specific inquiries regarding the genuineness of licence -- Owner was entitled to full indemnity. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation’s case 2013 AIR SCW 6505 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.09.2017

License of driver – Adverse inference -- According to the owner the licence had been renewed but the endorsement is not signed by any officer -- There is no explanation why the licence was not taken back to the authorities for their signatures -- The official who had come from the Licensing Authority had stated that there was no record of renewal pertaining to this licence -- Driver-owner failed to step into the witness box and an adverse inference should be drawn against them.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.07.2017

Gratuitous passengers – Principle of “pay and recover” -- Victim was travelling in offending vehicle as "gratuitous passenger" – Insurance Company is directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then recover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by filing execution application against the insured. Saju P. Paul’s case (2013) 2 SCC 41 relied.

(SC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Onus of proof -- When the license was proved by driver, the Insurance Company did not raise any objection about its admissibility or manner of proving -- Once the license was proved by the driver and marked in evidence and without there being any objection by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company had no right to raise any objection about the admissibility and manner of proving of the license at a later stage -- Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence -- Tribunal was right in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving license at the time of accident.

(SC) Decided on: 13.07.2016

Gratuitous passengers – Pleadings – Requirement of -- Plea of gratuitous passengers has been raised for the first time before High Court in appeal, which cannot be allowed -- If a plea is not taken and a point for consideration is not specifically framed whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle, it cannot be urged for the first time in appeal -- Thus, it can be safely concluded that the insurance company cannot plead for exclusion of liability and cannot deny indemnity to insured on the ground of violation of terms of policy. Bachhi Bai’s case 2011 ACJ 2475 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2016

Gratuitous passengers – Third party risk – Held, object and purpose of Sections 146 and 147 are that policy of insurance should cover liability in respect of death or bodily injury of person including owner of the goods or its authorized representative who may be carried in a goods vehicle/carriage as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act – Admittedly, passengers were authorized representatives of the owner on the offending vehicle and thus covered under the policy of insurance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2016

Accident within 30 days of expiry of license – Driving licence of driver was held to be valid on the date of accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

Renewal of Fake license – Liability of Employer -- Whether the employer/owner has taken proper precautions before employing driver to drive school mini bus -- It is in the statement of Driver himself and witness of School Authority that before appointment, driving licence of Driver was checked and also the driving test was taken -- If the employer has taken the reasonable precautions, then, in no way, it can be held that owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy -- Owner is not supposed to get the verification from DTO/RTO office regarding the original driving licence – Burdon is on insurer to establish breach of policy – Held, reasonable care was taken by employer, there is no violation of terms and conditions of policy.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

License of Light Motor Vehicle – Driver had a licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ but failed to obtain endorsement for driving goods vehicle – No breach of any condition of insurance policy, entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2014

Invalid driving license – Owner did not raise any contention that he has used due diligence in allowing the driver to drive the vehicle -- Appellant/ Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount directing that the company may recover the same from respondent Nos.3 (Driver) and 4 (owner) – Executing Court dismissed Execution application being not maintainable, however Insurance Company was given independent right to recover the amount from insured (Owner and Driver) as per award through regular civil suit – High Court affirmed the order – Held, it would be travesty of justice, if the Insurance Company which is directed to pay the amount and then face immense difficulties in executing a decree -- Impugned judgments cannot be sustained -- Appeals are allowed, the executing courts are directed to proceed with the execution and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

(SC) Decided on: 04.08.2009