BELI RAM versus RAJINDER KUMAR & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 11 S.C.R. 31 · Decided: 23-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
31
BELI RAM
v.
RAJINDER KUMAR & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7220-7221 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 23, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – The first respondent
was driving the vehicle as the driver of the appellant for almost
three years without renewing licence – The first respondent-driver
met with an accident while driving a truck and suffered 20 per cent
permanent disability – He sought compensation under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – The aspect of non-validity of
the driving licence weighed with the High Court and while passing
the impugned judgment absolved insurance company of any liability
and fastened the same upon the appellant-owner on account of
breach of insurance policy – On appeal, held: This Court is in
complete agreement with the views taken by the Delhi High Court
in Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Akansha & Ors., the Allahabad
High Court in the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manoj Kumar & Ors.,
and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Hem Raj & Ors., with the culmination being the elucidation
of the correct legal principle in the judgment in Hem Raj – It was
observed in Hem Raj case that the owner must show that he has
verified the licence – He must also take reasonable care to see that
his employee gets his licence renewed within time – It is no defence
for the owner to plead that he forgot that the driving licence of his
employee had to be renewed – In the instant case, the appellant-
owner permitted to let the first respondent-driver drive the truck
with an expired licence for almost three years – It is a case of lack
of reasonable care to see that the employee gets his licence renewed,
further, if the original licence is verified, certainly the employer
would know when the licence expires – The 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 – The
initial lack of care by the first respondent in not renewing the driving
[2020] 11 S.C.R. 31
31
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
32
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
licence would be present, but the lack of care of the appellant as
the employer would also arise.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. This Court is of the view that 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. It cannot be said that thereafter he can
wash his hands off the responsibility of not checking up whether
the driver has renewed the licence. It is not a case where a licence
has not been renewed for a short period of time, say a month, as
was considered in the case of Swaran Singh where the benefit
was given to a third party by burdening the insurance company.
The licence in the instant case, has not been renewed for a period
of three years and that too in respect of commercial vehicle like
a truck. The appellant showed gross negligence in verifying the
same. [Para 15][41-C-E]
2. The  Delhi High Court in Tata AIG General Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Akansha & Ors. found that the driving licence having
expired led to the natural finding that there was no valid driving
licence on the date of the accident. The initial onus was discharged
by the insurance company in view of the licence not being valid
on the date of the accident. The onus, thereafter, shifted to the
owner/insured to prove that he had taken sufficient steps to
ensure that there was no breach of the terms and conditions of
the insurance policy. Since no evidence had been led in this behalf,
a presumption was drawn that there was willful and conscious
breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
[Para 18][41-G-H; 42-A-B]
3. The Allahabad High Court in The Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Manoj Kumar & Ors. again dealt with the case of an expired
driving licence. The endeavour to rely on the principle set forth
in a fake licence case was held not applicable in the case of an
expired licence since the owner was supposed to be aware that
the driving licence of the driver had expired and, thus, it was
held that it was the duty of the owner to have ensured that the
driver gets the licence renewed within time. In the absence of a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
33
valid driving licence, the vehicle was being driven in breach of
the c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.