Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Liability of Insured-owner -- Merely because the driving license of the driver is fake, would not be a sufficient ground by itself to absolve the insurance company of its liability to indemnify the insured -- Owner could not be expected to carry out a roving enquiry into the authenticity of the driving license, more so, when driving license in question had been regularly renewed -- Insurance company is held liable to indemnify the insured and pay the amount of compensation to the claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2022

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

Legality of -- Original driving licence was fake, however, the endorsement from 1999 to 2011 are correct -- If the original driving licence is fake, then its renewals cannot be held as legal -- The licence will remain forged.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

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