Allowed

Dulamani Man and Ors. v. Sanjay Ku.Sahu and Anr.

Orissa HC17 Apr 2023MACA/162/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a motor accident compensation order. Directing the insurer to pay Rs. 3,12,000 with interest, the court held the owner could not be liable to recover the amount as he bona fide believed the driver held a valid license, relying on Rishi Pal Singh.

What did the court decide?

The insurer is directed to pay the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal along with interest within two months.

Dulamani Man and Ors. Vs Sanjay Ku.Sahu and Anr. — Insurance | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MACA No.162 of 2012

¶3

(From the judgment dated 14^th December, 2011 passed by the learned 1^st M.A.C.T., Mayurbhanj, Baripada in M.A.C. Case No.104 of 2007)

¶4

Smt. Dulamani Man and others …. Appellants
-versus-
….
Sanjay Kumar Sahu and another Respondents

¶5

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

¶6

For Appellants : Mr. B.B. Singh, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. N. Lenka, Advocate
For Respondent No.1
Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
For Respondent No.2
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
17 th April, 2023

¶7

B.P. Routray, J.

¶8

1. Heard Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the Appellantsclaimants, Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for Respondent No2Insurance Company and Mr. N. Lenka, learned counsel for Respondent No.1-owner.

¶9

2. Present appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment dated 14.12.2011 of learned 1^st M.A.C.T., Mayurbhanj, Baripada in

¶10

MACA No.162 of 2012

¶11

Page 1 of 4

¶12

M.A.C. Case No.104 of 2007, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.3,12,000/- has been granted along with interest @6% per annum to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 1.8.2007 on account of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident dated 22.7.2007.

¶13

3. It is seen that learned Tribunal while awarding compensation has directed the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the same and exonerated the insurer despite validity of the policy on the date of accident on the ground that driving license of the driver was not produced.

¶14

4. During pendency of the appeal, copy of the DL was produced by the owner. The same was verified by the insurer and Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the insurer submits that on verification it is found to be a fake one.

¶15

5. The offending vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-01-H-9939 is a Tempo and a commercial vehicle. The driver was engaged by the owner and admittedly his competency to drive the vehicle has not been questioned. No material has been brought on record to disclose anything if the owner had any knowledge of possession of a fake DL by the driver. Therefore, as per the principles settled in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , and Nirmala Kothari vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, (2020) 4 SCC 49 , it would be apt to direct the insurance company to indemnify the compensation amount on behalf of the owner and recover the same

¶16

MACA No.162 of 2012

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

from the owner in accordance with law. But in another recent decision, in the case of Rishi Pal Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.4919 of 2022, decided on 26^th July 2022), the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as follows:

¶19

“10. The owner of the vehicle is expected to verify the driving skills and not run to the licensing authority to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver. Therefore, once the owner is satisfied that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from the owner thereafter to verify the genuineness of the driving license issued to the driver.

¶20

In view of the said finding, the order passed by the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal is set aside. Hence, liberty is given to the insurance company to recover the amount from the appellant is also set aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.”

¶21

6. In the case at hand, as stated above, the owner did not have any knowledge regarding possession of a fake license by his driver and no dispute has been raised with regard to driving skill of the driver. So, as per the principles decided in the case of Rishi Pal Singh (supra), the owner cannot be burdened with recovery of the amount from him since he bonafidely believed his driver having a valid license. As such, the insurer cannot be granted with right to recover the amount from the owner.

¶22

7. Resultantly, the insurer is directed to pay the compensation amount as determined by learned Tribunal along with interest within a period of two months from today, where-after the same shall be

¶23

MACA No.162 of 2012

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

disbursed in favour of the claimants on same terms and proportion as contained in the impugned judgment.

¶26

8. The appeal is disposed of.

¶27

(B.P. Routray) Judge

¶28

B.K. Barik/Secretary