Annual subscription Rs. 1000/-
Full text with Headnotes through
email / WhatsApp
FREE with
PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
Annual subscription Rs. 2800/- (2020) punjablawreporter@gmail.com / 9463598502
Recent update
Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988)Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Driving Licence - What is the extent of care / diligence expected of the employer/insured while employing a driver? -Click here
PLR Supreme Court e@journal
Annual subscription Rs. 1000/-
Full text with Headnotes through
email / WhatsApp
FREE with
PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
Annual subscription Rs. 2800/- (2020) punjablawreporter@gmail.com / 9463598502
Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, Section 149 - Driving Licence – Fake - 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 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. Held, neither the Tribunal nor the High Court has bothered to analyse the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties on the crucial matter. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to relegate the parties before the High Court for fresh consideration of the appeal filed by the appellant (owner) only on the question of liability of the owner or of the insurer to pay the compensation amount. That in the oral evidence, the owner had stated that he had seen the photocopy of the driving licence of S and was also satisfied about his driving skills, before employing him as the driver for driving the vehicle. The Tribunal made no attempt to analyse the pleadings and evidence on record to ascertain whether the appellant (owner) was aware of the fake driving licence possessed by the driver. The Tribunal merely adverted to the investigation and verification report and found that the stated driving licence was invalid. The High Court also made no attempt to enquire into the relevant aspect, as has been consistently expounded by this Court and restated in PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company, (2013)10 SCC 217 and Premkumari and Ors. Vs. Prahlad Dev and Ors., (2008)3 SCC 193. Matter remanded. (2018)2 SCeJ 1338 . DOWNLOAD JUDGEMENT