SINGH RAM versus NIRMALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 36 · Decided: 06-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
SINGH RAM
v.
NIRMALA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2103 of 2018)
MARCH 06, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act 1988 –  s. 166 – Compensation – Liability
to pay when license fake – On facts, insured did not hold a valid
driving licence at the time of the incident – Liability to pay
compensation fastened on owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle
by courts below – Insurance company directed to pay and recover
from the owner – Interference with – Held: Not called for – Owner
did not depose in evidence – He produced a licence which was
found to be fake – Another licence he sought to produce had already
expired before the accident and was not renewed within the
prescribed period – Owner evidently failed to take reasonable care
to find out as to whether the driving license produced by the driver,
fake one or otherwise, fulfilled the requirements of law or not – He
could not have been unmindful of facts within his knowledge –
Thus, the direction by the courts below that the insurance company
to pay and recover from owner cannot be faulted.
In the instant case, the insured did not hold a valid driving
licence at the time of the accident. As a result, the courts below
absolved the insurer. However, the insurer was directed to pay
the compensation awarded to the claimant and to recover it from
the owner cum driver of the offending motor cycle. Hence, the
present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : It is necessary to note that the owner did not
depose in evidence and stayed away from the witness box. He
produced a licence which was found to be fake. Another licence
which he sought to produce had already expired before the
accident and was not renewed within the prescribed period. It
was renewed well after two years had expired. The appellant as
owner had evidently failed to take reasonable care to find out as
  [2018]  3 S.C.R. 36
36
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
37
to whether the driving license produced by the driver, fake one
or otherwise, fulfilled the requirements of law or not (proposition
(vii) of Swaran Singh) since he could not have been unmindful of
facts which were within his knowledge. In the circumstances, the
direction by the tribunal, confirmed by the High Court, directing
the insurance company to pay and recover from owner cannot be
faulted. [Paras 8, 9] [41-A-C]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh [2004] 1
SCR 180 : (2004) 3 SCC 297 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2004] 1 SCR 180
  relied on
Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal No. 2103
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.03.2014 by the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No. 3790 of 2012
(O & M).
R. K. Kapoor, Rajat Kapoor, Ms. Rekha Giri, Anis Ahmed Khan,
Balbir Singh Gupta, Advs for the Appellant.
Shish Pal Laler, Sonit Sinhmar, Devesh Kumar Tripathi, Advs for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Delay condoned.
2. In a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’),
Yamunanagar at Jagadhri found that the insured did not hold a valid
driving licence at the time of the accident.  The Tribunal absolved the
insurer for that reason.  The insurer was, however, directed to pay the
compensation awarded to the claimant and to recover it from the owner
of the offending motor cycle. The High Court dealt with three appeals:
one filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, a second
by the insurance company and the third by the owner cum driver of the
offending vehicle. The High Court held that in view of the decision of
this Court  in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Swaran Singh1, the
Tribunal was correct in directing the insurer to pay the compensation
1(2004) 3 SCC 297
SINGH RAM v. NIRMALA AND ORS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
and to recover it from the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle.
The present appeal has been filed by the owner and driver.  The only
point which has been urged in support of the appeal is that the Tribunal
and the High Court erred in fastening the liability on him by granting a
right of recovery to the insurer.
3. The accident took place on 22 March 2010.  The deceased
Sunil Kumar was riding a motor cycle bearing Registration No HR-
04B-4673.  The Tribunal found that the accident was caused as a result
of the rash

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