#drivinglicence #insurance
Video Credits
Video by adege from Pixabay license.
[ Ссылка ]
Music License from Kinemaster - Family Day, Fly the night
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7220-7221 OF 2011
BELI RAM …Appellant
Versus
RAJINDER KUMAR & ANR. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. The sole question of law for consideration in the present appeals is
whether in case of a valid driving licence, if the licence has expired, the
insured is absolved of its liability.
A person when he
hands his motor vehicle to a driver owes some responsibility to
society at large. Lives of innocent people are put to risk in case the
vehicle is handed over to a person not duly licensed. Therefore,
there must be some evidence to show that the owner had either
checked the driving licence or had given instructions to his driver
to get his driving licence renewed on expiry thereof. In the present
case, no such evidence has been led. In view of the above
discussion, I am clearly of the view that there was a breach of the
terms of the policy and the Insurance Company could not have
been held liable to satisfy the claim.”
22. We have reproduced the aforesaid observations as it is our view
that it sets forth lucidly the correct legal position and we are in complete
agreement with the views taken in all the three judgments of three
16
different High Courts with the culmination being the elucidation of the
correct legal principle in the judgment in the Hem Raj11 case.
23. When we turn to the facts of the present case there is almost an
identical situation where the appellant has permitted to let the first
respondent driver drive the truck with an expired licence for almost three
(3) years. It is clearly 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.
And here it was a commercial vehicle being a truck. 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 (3) years.
The only thing we note is that fortunately there has been no accident with
a third party claimant but the person who has caused the sufferance and
sufferer are one and the same person, i.e., the first respondent driver. We
are, however, dealing with the determination under the Compensation Act
and those provisions are for the benefit of the workmen like the first
respondent, even though he may be at fault, by determining a small
amount payable to provide succor at the relevant stage when the larger
11 (supra)
17
issues could be debated in other proceedings.
The only exception is in the provisos to Section 3 of the
Compensation Act, which is not the factual situation in the present case.
The relevant provision reads as under:
“3. Employer' s liability for compensation.-
(1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising
out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be
liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of
this Chapter:
Provided that the employer shall not be so liable--
(a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or
partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding [four]
days;
(b) in respect of any [injury, not resulting in death, caused by] an
accident which is directly attributable to--
(i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the
influence of drink or drugs, or
(ii) the wilful disobedience of the workman to an order
expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the
purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or
(iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the workman of any
safety guard or other device which he knew to have been
provided for the purpose of securing the safety of
workmen.”
We are not aware whether any other proceedings have been
18
initiated or not, at least, none that have been brought to our notice. The
aforesaid findings of the initial lack of care by the first respondent in not
renewing the driving licence would be present, but the lack of care of the
appellant as the employer would also arise. We have penned down the
aforesaid views as such a situation is quite likely to arise in proceedings
under the MV Act where a third party is claiming the amount.
Proceedings here being under the Compensation Act, the consequences
are not flowing to the first respondent as the initial negligent person.
24. In view of the aforesaid, the appeals are dismissed by settling the
aforesaid question of law and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
...……………………………J.
[Sanjay Kishan Kaul]
...……………………………J.
[Aniruddha Bose)
...……………………………J.
[Krishna Murari)
New Delhi.
September 23, 2020.
