New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Balbir Kaur & ORS
!"#" $%
& $'"
##() $!
*+ $, - '.
......++ // $
0#.
/1") 2 () $'
)# ...... #+ $'
$
# % 4- 5. 5 5 5
5 5 .
-
"
#
$%
& ' ()
*+,- ,
.
"
##
# / 0 1 "
2
3 4
"
"
'0 .
3
1 5
.
% 55
#.!
" 6 7
"78 1
'0 .
1 1
"
.
.31
9 :
.
5 5
"
;;; <1 %3 =. %3 6 8 1 3 >
"
3
3 * <'/ '/ ;1.3
.3 <?3 ? 3
1 31
.
% %3 @ < %3 <1%3 3 %3 @%2 %3
3 ? 3
1 A
1 3
.3 '< ""
3
3 *
<'/ '/ ;"
3 33 "
* '& %3 3
>
B 2
>
1
3?22
"
3
3
>
> & %3
" 1
.
)0*5 5 ;;;13
3
3
*
3 3
<%3 =. %3 12 #C
.1
1
&* # C , .
.
D.
; ;;;& * # C
> " .
5
.
.
" 3
1
3
. @.
) .
3
!
"
.
13 '
(i) Whether on 15.01.99 at about 2.15 PM on BarnalaMansa road, within the limits of Police Station, Joga, Gamdoor Singh alias Billu died in a motor vehicle accident, on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PB31A/3019 by respondent No.1?OPA (ii) Whether the petitioners are legal representatives of deceased? OPA (iii) Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effect? OPR3 (iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from which of the respondents? OPA. (v) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR3 (vi) Relief.
E
23
3
"1 .
.C1
" .
1
'0 #.
5 555 - 5- -- ; ,
'0 #.
1 2
" 1 3 .
0 .
"
.
C
.
1 1
" .
1
'0 #.
0
1
'
"The next question, will falls for consideration as to whether all the respondents are liable to pay compensation
or only some of the respondents are liable to pay the same. It was submitted by the counsel for respondent No.3, that since the driving licence being held by respondent No.1 at the time of accident was forged, the Insurance company, was absolved of its liability, to pay any compensation. Naresh Gupta, Junior Assistant of D.T.O. Sangrur, appeared as RW2 and brought the driving licence register for the year 1978. He stated that he could not say as to wherefrom the licence, copy whereof is Ex.R1, was issued originally. He further stated that according to the record brought by him, the licence No.13729 was issued in favour of DD Sharma s/o Bidna Dutt Sharma c/o Bansal Cottage Salami gate, Sangrur and he proved on record Ex. R2, copy of the register. The original of Ex.R1 is Ex.R4. The perusal of Ex.
R4 shows that it was renewed by the DTO, Mansa upto 26.06.2002 from 01.07.1999. It is further evident that it was issued by DTO Mansa. The counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that since Ex.R4, driving licence was not issued in favour of respondent no.1, Darshan Singh, the same is forged. It may be stated here that Insurance Company can absolve itself of its liability to pay compensation, only if it proves that the insured intentionally & deliberately violated the terms & conditions of the Insurance policy, at the time of employing the driver, knowing that the licence being held by him was forged. Attar Singh, Manager of Hardial Bus Service, appeared as RW3 and stated that whenever they employ a driver his licence is seen. He further stated that Ex.
R4, the licence of Darshan Singh, was seen and it was renewed from Bathinda thrice and from Mansa twice. He further stated that at the time of getting the bus insured, the Insurance Company also saw the licence, Ex.R4. No prudent person on seeing the licence, Ex.
licence is bearing the stamp of DTO, the Mansa with his signatures and renewal endorsement of DTO Mansa, with his stamp. Had the insured not seen the licence or after entertaining doubt, with regard to the genuineness thereof, employed Darshan Singh as driver, it would have been said that the Insurance Company, was absolved of its liability. In Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kokilaben Chander Vadan and others, AIR 1987, (SC), 1184, the principle of law, laid down, was that once the insured placed the vehicle, in the hands of a duly licenced driver, without knowing as to whether, the licence, held by him, was valid or fake, and took all sort of precautions, could not absolve itself of the liability of making payment of compensation, awarded by the Claims Tribunal. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Santro Devi and others 1998 (1) PLR 61 (SC) the same principle of law, was laid down. As stated above at the time of employing Darshan Singh as driver of the vehicle, the employer very well checked his licence, and found that the same had been issued by the DTO, Mansa and had also been renewed. He could not entertain any doubt, with regard to the genuineness thereof. Devinder Kumar, Junior Assistant, office of DTO, Bathinda RW1 also deposed with regard to the renewal of licence in favour of respondent No.1. Since, there was no default on the part of insured, at the time of employing Darshan Singh respondent No.1, as the vehicle, the Insurance Company, is not absolved of its liability. All the respondents, are thus held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation."
.
F.
.
3 1
"
.
.
"
!
3
"
"
1
3
3
3 .
/
" 3
3 6GF 48
. A/ %3 63
C <%
8
1 "
"
!
!
"
" 3
.
.
3
& %3 6
8
" .1 4
11
. % 4;686868
H
;EE .
.
3 . .
3
3
.
C1
.
.
"
"
"
"
" !
.
"
11
3 "
1
.
" ..31 "
0
"
I
2
!
3
. A/ %3 I 1
F.
.
.
.
"
3 "
3
.
3
, 3 6&!B 8
.
1
..
3!
B
3<
:
!
1
3
3 3
5 0
1
3 1
3!
. "
0.
3 3 .
1
" "
1 .
" " !
3 "
"
C+" %
.
#
! "
!
# $ % &''
( 1
1 3
1
3"3
.
, 3
"
.
%. # ) ! *
)
!
# ++, $
-% 1
3
F# +
.
$ / %
.
+ .
3
32
3
!
.
I
I 1
!B
" . E
1 3
1 "
" .
1
;
; 0 1
33 1
12 " #
3
"
"
'
3
" # 3
. "
3 .
0 1
"
)
5 5
sonia arora/Ayub
23@
J @*
" J @*