The decision in Pepsu RTC (Pepsu RTC v. National Insurance Co

adjudication of the claims of the victims.”

The decision in Pepsu RTC (Pepsu RTC v. National Insurance Co., (2013) 10 SCC 217: (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 713: (2013) 4 SCC (Cr) 768: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 750) was relied upon by the appellant before the High Court which, however, distinguished the same by observing that it was on the facts of that case, where the Court opined that there was no evidence to prove that the driving licence produced by the authorities was fake. That approach, in our opinion, is manifestly wrong. Whereas, even in that case, the Court was called upon to deal with the similar question as is involved in this appeal. In that case, the Court first adverted to the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, (2003) 3 SCC 338: 2003 SCC (Cri) 614), and then to the three-Judge Bench decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) POOJA SHARMA 2024.11.19 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 SCC 297: 2004 SCC (Cri) 733) Paras 99-101 of Swaran Singh (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297: 2004 SCC (Crl) 733) have been extracted, which read thus: (SCC p. 339) "99. So far as the purported conflict in the judgments of Kamla (New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla, (2001) 4 SCC 342: 2001 SCC (Cri) 701) and Lehru (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, (2003) 3 SCC 338: 2003 SCC (Cri) 614) is concerned, we may wish to point out that the defence to the effect that the licence held by the person driving the vehicle was a fake one, would be available to the insurance companies, but whether despite the same, the plea of default on the part of the owner has been established or not would be a question which will have to be determined in each case.

This Court, however, in Lehru United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, (2003) 3 SCC 338:2003 SCC (Cri) 614) must not be read to mean that an owner of a vehicle can under no circumstances have any duty to make any enquiry in this respect. The same, however, would again be a question which would arise for consideration in each individual case.

The submission of Mr Salve that in Lehru case (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, (2003) 3 SCC 338: 2003 SCC (Cri) 614), this Court has, for all intent and purport, taken away the right of an insurer to raise a defence that the licence is fake does not appear to be correct. Such defence can certainly be raised but it will be for the insurer to prove that the insured did not take adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the licence held by the driver. " (Pepsu RTC case (Pepsu RTC v. National Insurance Co., (2013) 10 SCC 217: (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 713: (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 768: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 750), SCC pp. 222-23, para 8) The Court then went on to advert to a two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC POOJA SHARMA 2024.11.19 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 700: (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142), before dealing with the facts of the case before it.

Suffice it to observe that it is well established that if the owner was aware of the fact that the licence was fake and still permitted the driver to drive the vehicle, then the insurer would stand absolved. However, the mere fact that the driving licence is fake , per se, would not absolve the insurer. Indubitably, the High Court noted that the counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the driving licence was found to be fake, but that concession by itself was not sufficient to absolve the insurer. POOJA SHARMA 2024.11.19 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document