In an appeal filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by the driver of a car against an award dated 27-05-2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (MACT), to the limited extent that the insurance company had been granted a right to recover the compensation payable by it from the driver and owner of the vehicle, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Deepak Gupta dismissed the appeal finding no illegality in the impugned findings.
The claim petition arose out of a motor vehicle accident dated 31-08-2015, in which a nine-month-old lost her life. MACT awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,49,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and held the driver and the owner of the offending car jointly and severally liable, directing the insurer to satisfy the award in the first instance with liberty to recover the amount from the driver and owner, on the finding that the appellant did not possess a valid and effective driving licence authorising him to drive the vehicle in India.
The appellant submitted that he had produced a driving licence issued by the competent authority in Victoria, Australia, valid up to 11-04-2017, and that the MACT had erred in ignoring it merely because it had not been issued or endorsed by an Indian licensing authority.
The Court stated that the questions to be considered were whether the finding that the appellant was driving the offending vehicle suffered from any perversity and whether the driving license issued by the Australian authority constituted a valid and effective driving license for driving the offending vehicle in India.
It was held that the contention that the appellant was not driving the offending car could not be accepted, since the testimony of the deceased’s father regarding the manner of the accident and the identity of the driver could not be discredited despite lengthy cross-examination, and was corroborated by the FIR, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., and the appellant’s own admission that he had been arrested in connection with the accident without ever alleging false implication. The Court stated that proceedings before a claims tribunal are not governed by the strict standard of proof applicable to a criminal prosecution and that negligence and involvement of the offending vehicle are required to be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.
While the deceased’s father’s testimony created an inconsistency and the acquittal by the criminal court was a relevant circumstance, the Court found that these did not render the MACT’s finding perverse or wholly unsupported by evidence, since the appellant had produced no independent evidence that someone else was driving, and the non-examination of the owner did not advance his case since it was open to him to summon the owner if considered essential.
Regarding the license, the Court stated that Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prohibited driving in a public place without an effective driving licence, and that a foreign licence did not automatically confer a right to drive in India merely because it was valid in the country of issuance. It was noted that even though the appellant asserted that an earlier Indian license was deposited with the Australian authority, he could neither disclose the particulars nor produce a copy of the same.
The Court noted that he had produced only an Australian domestic licence without any international driving permit or endorsement by a competent Indian authority and held that since the appellant had failed to show that the Australian license fulfilled the statutory requirements applicable to a foreign national, the MACT did not commit any error in holding that the appellant was not possessing a valid and effective driving license at the time of the said accident.
Referring on National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297, the Court held that the insurer was entitled to recover the compensation from the appellant, whose direct liability as driver and tortfeasor was independent of the owner’s obligation under the contract of insurance. It was stated that the appellant could not seek immunity merely because the owner also failed to ensure that the vehicle was entrusted to a duly licensed person.
Finding no illegality or perversity in the MACT’s findings, the Court dismissed the appeal, clarifying that the dismissal would not affect the claimants’ right to receive or retain the compensation awarded, and that the insurance company would remain liable to satisfy the award in the first instance while retaining its entitlement to recover the amount in accordance with the award’s directions.
