IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH United India Insurance Co v. FAO-2076-2002
Case Details
FAO-2076-2002 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH United India Insurance Co. Versus FAO-2076-2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.11.2025 ...Appellant Rajinder Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Saurav Saini, Advocate for respondents No.6(i), (ii), (iv), (v) & (vi). Nandan Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.8. Mr. Karundeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.9. Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.10-Insurance Company. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Insurance company is in appeal against the award dated 12.02.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby compensa;on has been awarded to the claimants and liability has been fastened equally upon the owner, driver and insurer of truck No.HNE-411. 2. In a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 28.02.1997, involving truck No. HNE-411 and truck No. PB-11-C-8608, one Surjit Singh lost his life. His legal representa;ves filed a claim pe;;on under Sec;on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, impleading the drivers, owners and insurers of both the vehicles. YOGESH MEHTA 2025.11.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. The learned Tribunal, on apprecia;on of evidence, returned a finding that the driver of truck No.HNE-411 was guilty of rash and negligent FAO-2076-2002 (O&M) [2] driving and accordingly, assessed compensa;on in the sum of ₹2,32,400/- along with interest, making the owner, driver and insurer of the said vehicle as liable to sa;sfy the award in equal shares jointly and severally. 4. The present appeal has been filed by the insurer of truck No. HNE-411 (United India Insurance Company) seeking recovery rights against the insured on the plea that the driver of the said vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and had not produced any such licence before the Tribunal. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for Na;onal Insurance Company, the insurer of the other truck No. PB-11-C-8608 also points out that driver of said truck Baldev Singh, was holding a fake driving licence. 6. award. I have heard learned counsel for the par;es and perused the 7. So far as the plea of Na;onal Insurance Company is concerned, a perusal of the award shows that an official from the office of the District Transport Officer, Pa;ala, was examined as RW-1 and he produced the record rela;ng to renewal of driving licence in the name of Baldev Singh (driver). He deposed that the relevant renewal record for the period from 01.07.1996 to 30.06.1999 was not available owing to the death of the dealing official, Sh. Amarnath Sharma. The Tribunal further no;ced that the driving licence (Ex.R-5) was originally issued by the Licensing Authority, Raipur (Madhya Pradesh). On the strength of the non-availability of renewal record at Pa;ala, the Tribunal concluded that the licence of Baldev Singh was “fake”. 8. Such a conclusion, in my considered view, is wholly unsustainable. The burden to prove that a licence is fake or not duly issued lies squarely on the insurer, who takes such a defence under Sec;on 149(2) YOGESH MEHTA 2025.11.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document of the Motor Vehicles Act. To discharge that burden, it was incumbent upon FAO-2076-2002 (O&M) [3] the insurer to examine an official from the issuing Licensing Authority, i.e. Raipur (Madhya Pradesh), to categorically depose that no licence had ever been issued in favour of Baldev Singh, or that Ex.R-5 did not emanate from that office. No such official was examined. 9. Further, the DTO, Pa;ala, merely stated that the renewal record for a par;cular period was not traceable due to the death of the dealing official. Non-availability of renewal record at Pa;ala does not by itself lead to the inference that the original licence issued by Raipur authority was fake. At the most, it only means that the renewal entry could not be verified from that office. This is far short of the strict proof required to establish that the licence was fake. Hence, the insurer has failed to prove any breach of policy condi;on on this ground. 10. With regard to the plea of United India Insurance Company (insurer of truck No. HNE-411), its conten;on is that the driver Karnail Singh did not produce any driving licence and, therefore, recovery rights ought to be granted. 11. It is, however, fairly conceded by learned counsel for the appellant that there is nothing on record to show that the Tribunal ever directed the owner or driver to produce the licence, nor is there any material to indicate that the insurance company had served any no;ce upon the insured calling upon him to produce the driving licence and that he failed to do so. 12. It is well seLled that an insurer, in order to avoid or reduce liability by invoking a defence under Sec;on 149(2), must not only plead breach of a specified policy condi;on, such as absence of valid driving licence, but must also affirma;vely prove such breach. A mere asser;on in the wriLen statement or the fact that the licence was not voluntarily produced is not enough. Usually, the insurer must either summon the driver/owner along with the licence; or issue a no;ce to produce the licence; and, on failure, examine the concerned Licensing Authority to show YOGESH MEHTA 2025.11.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2076-2002 (O&M) [4] that no such licence exists or that the one relied upon is not genuine. 13. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the owner was called upon to produce the licence, or that any effort was made to verify the par;culars of the licence from the concerned Licensing Authority. In the absence of such steps, the insurer cannot be heard to say that the driver was not duly licensed. 14. In light of the above discussion, it is clear that appellant United India Insurance Company has not discharged the burden of proving a valid statutory defence so as to claim recovery rights against the insured. As far as plea of Na;onal Insurance Company is concerned, It failed to prove that driving licence of Baldev was fake. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly fastened liability on insurer of offending truck No.HNE-411 without gran;ng any right of recovery. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the award in exercise of appellate jurisdic;on. The appeal filed by United India Insurance Company is devoid of any merit and is accordingly
Decision
dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applica;ons, if any, stand disposed of. 12.11.2025 Yogesh (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Yes/No Whether reportable:- YOGESH MEHTA 2025.11.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document