Rajasthan HC Dismisses Insurer's Fake Licence Plea Where Licensing Authority Was Never Called to Testify
National Insurance failed to summon the Guwahati licensing authority to verify the disputed licence; the Rajasthan High Court ruled that the insurer could not then presume the licence was fake.
The Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, has dismissed two civil miscellaneous appeals filed by National Insurance Company Ltd. challenging motor accident compensation awards granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar. Justice Ashutosh Kumar, sitting singly, held that the Insurance Company could not escape liability on the ground that the driver's licence was fake, when the company itself had never summoned the licensing authority at Guwahati to prove that it did not issue the licence in question. The ruling follows the principle settled by a co-ordinate bench of the same court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Moda Ram & Ors., which the insurer was unable to distinguish.
The Accident Claims and the Tribunal's Awards
The two appeals arose from Claim Petition Nos. 397/2005 and 398/2005, both decided by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, through a common judgment and award dated 21 June 2006. The first petition was filed by Sultan Singh and others, and the second by Parmeshwar, against Mahavir, the driver-cum-owner of truck No. RJ-13-G 0410, and the Insurance Company.
The learned Tribunal allowed both claim petitions and directed payment of compensation to the respective claimants. National Insurance Company challenged these awards before the High Court in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2880/2006 (URN: CMA/4109U/2006) and S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2830/2006 (URN: CMA/4034U/2006).
Among the respondent-claimants in the first appeal were Sultan Singh, aged 55, and his five minor children — Sher Singh, Hoshiyar Singh, Karan Singh, Kumari Manju, and Kumar Sanju — the minors represented through Sultan Singh as their natural guardian. Parmeshwar, resident of Bidasar, District Sikar, was the claimant in the second appeal.
The Insurer's Sole Argument: Breach of Policy on Account of Fake Licence
Although the appeals were filed on various grounds, counsel for National Insurance Company, Ms. Sunita Choudhary, confined arguments at the hearing to a single point: that driver Mahavir did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, constituting a breach of the insurance policy condition.
The company's case was that the driving licence relied upon by Mahavir appeared to have been issued by the DTO, Guwahati. During investigation, the company's investigator found that the DTO Guwahati had not, in fact, issued that licence. On this basis, the insurer argued that the licence was fake, the policy condition was breached, and the Insurance Company therefore could not be held liable to satisfy the awards.
Respondent's Counter: Investigator's Statement Alone Cannot Raise a Presumption
Counsel for the non-claimant respondent Mahavir, Mr. Sanjay Mehla, appearing with Ms. Sunita Mehla, submitted that it is settled law that the Insurance Company is duty-bound to prove that the driving licence possessed by the driver was not issued by the competent authority and was a fake. Relying on the statement of the company's own investigator alone, he argued, cannot create a presumption that the driver lacked a valid licence.
Counsel drew the court's attention to United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Moda Ram & Ors. (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 516/1997), decided on 28 July 2004 by a co-ordinate bench of the Rajasthan High Court. That judgment holds that where no evidence is submitted to prove a fact, the fact cannot be presumed. On that basis, counsel submitted, the Tribunal had correctly decided the licence issue against the Insurance Company and the appeals deserved dismissal.
The High Court's Reasoning
Justice Ashutosh Kumar agreed with the respondent's position. The court observed that it was an admitted position in both matters that the Insurance Company did not attempt to call the licensing authority at Guwahati to prove or verify whether the driving licence, exhibited as Exhibit-10, had been issued by it.
The court applied Moda Ram & Ors. directly: because the insurer failed to call the competent licensing authority, it could not be presumed that the licence was fake. The court also noted that counsel for the Insurance Company was not in a position to controvert the principle laid down in that precedent. The insurer's failure to take the basic evidentiary step of summoning the DTO Guwahati was, in the court's view, fatal to its only argument.
The position reflects a consistent evidentiary standard applied by the Rajasthan High Court in motor accident matters: the burden of proving a licence is fake rests on the insurer, and that burden cannot be discharged by an investigator's report alone where the issuing authority has never been called to deny issuance.
Outcome
Justice Ashutosh Kumar dismissed both S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2830/2006 and S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2880/2006, finding no merit in either. All pending applications in both appeals were also dismissed. The compensation awards made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, in Claim Petition Nos. 397/2005 and 398/2005 accordingly stand.