$~19 & 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010425362021 + MAC.APP. 17/2022 AVINASH TOURIST TAXI SERVICES .....Appellant Through: Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms. Ramya S. Goel, Ms. Sanya Sharma, Ms. Ishika Kanyal, Advocates. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Mahua Kalra, Advocate. (20) # CNR No. DLHC010426452021 + MAC.APP. 25/2022 & CM APPL. 4983/2022 AVINASH TOURIST TAXI SERVICES .....Appellant Through: Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms. Ramya S. Goel, Ms. Sanya Sharma, Ms. Ishika Kanyal, Advocates. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Mahua Kalra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 02.09.2026 1. These appeals have been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle involved in the accident, which occurred on 15th February 2017, causing the death of Rajender, who was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2026 at 11:46:46 2. The offending vehicle, of which the appellant was the owner, was a car bearing registration no. DL-1NA-0056, which hit their motorcycle, causing fatality and injuries to driver of the motorcycle. 3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (‘MACT/Tribunal’) awarded compensation and granted rights of recovery to the Insurance Company based on an assessment made in paragraphs nos. 55-57 of the award. 4. The Tribunal, on assessment of facts, recorded that the vehicle was being driven at that time by one Ravi Kumar, who was stated to be the son of Raj Kumar (who was the authorised driver as far as the owner was concerned). 5. On assessment of the documentation of the license of Ravi Kumar, the Tribunal noted that he was either 10 years or 8 years on the date of the accident. 6. Mr. Shivam Goel, counsel for appellant, states that, firstly, Ravi Kumar was not the authorised driver as far as the owner was concerned, and secondly, even if he was, there was no way for the owner to verify that his license was fake or procured. 7. He relies upon the decision of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Lehru and Ors, (2003) 3 SCC 338. 8. Mr. Goel contends that, on the facts of the case, it is an admitted position that the appellant is a partnership concern and the owner of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2026 at 11:46:46 offending vehicle, which, on the date of the accident, was being driven by Ravi Kumar, respondent no. 2. 9. Although the appellant stated in its testimony that Ravi Kumar was the son of Raj Kumar, who was the authorized driver of the vehicle, even otherwise, even if Ravi Kumar is to be regarded as the person driving the offending vehicle on the date of the accident, owner’s role would have to be assessed in light of the decisions in Swaran Singh (supra) and Lehru (supra). 10. Ms. Mahua Kalra, counsel for respondent/Insurance Company, contends that the testimony of Raj Kumar, the driver, was never recorded. 11. To this, Mr. Goel points to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sandeep Yadav v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3782, wherein this Court held that the Tribunal’s decision of granting recovery rights against the registered owner of the vehicle could not be sustained. The Court took into account the owner's statement that he had done everything within his control, including verifying and producing the driving licence, but was unable to produce the driver as he had no control over the same. This contention was accepted by the Court. Moreover, there was no evidence on record that the owner of the vehicle, despite knowing that such driving license was fake and fabricated, allowed the driver to drive the offending vehicle. The Court stated that the Insurance Company was duty-bound to lead evidence on this aspect, in that the owner, despite being aware that the driving license was fake, chose to hand over the control to the driver. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2026 at 11:46:46 12. Further, Mr. Goel has relied upon the decision in Lehru (supra), where the Supreme Court has articulated on the issue of the duty of an owner to check the driving license of a driver and stated as under: “20. When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. We find it rather strange that Insurance Companies expect owners to make enquiries with RTO’s, which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to them is valid or not. Thus where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii). The Insurance Company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake the Insurance Company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly even in such a case the Insurance Company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. This is the law which has been laid down in Skandia, Sohan Lal Passi and Kamla case. We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and see no reason to take a different view.” (emphasis added) 13. In the circumstances of this case, Mr. Goel points out that the testimony of R3W1, Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Sr. Clerk, Regional Transport Office, Agra, is quite clear, where he states that the license which was produced by This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2026 at 11:46:46 Ravi Kumar Singh was indeed issued by the authority. According to him, the licence authorized the holder to drive a motorcycle and LMV (Private) and was valid with effect from 22nd March 2006 till 21st March 2026. He further stated that although there was an endorsement on the licence permitting the holder to drive a commercial vehicle, the said endorsement was forged, as no corresponding fee had been deposited. 14. Mr. Goel contends that, even as per the records of the RTO, the licence cannot be said to be fake. The allegation of the RTO is only that the endorsement authorizing the holder to drive a commercial vehicle was forged on account of the non-deposit of the requisite fee. 15. The Court has perused the testimony and the cross-examination of R3W1 and does not find that there is any deposition indicating that the said license (Ex. R3W1/2) was not valid. The witness in fact states that he had not brought any document to support his deposition that it was not a valid license. Importantly, he states that this license was issued in the name of Ravi Kumar Singh and is ‘a valid license’. 16. Mr. Goel's contention that the present case falls within the rubric of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra) and Lehru (supra) would have to, therefore, be accepted. 17. Even though Raj Kumar, father of Ravi Kumar, was not brought into the witness box by either the owner or the Insurance Company, that fact does not change the position that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time. This aspect will be irrespective of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2026 at 11:46:46 the issue of Ravi Kumar being considered a minor on the date of accident on the basis of his other identification documents, including Aadhar card. 18. Even if the owner would have gone through a process of verification of driving licence of Ravi Kumar on an assumption that he was the assigned driver, they would have come up with a confirmation of the license’s validity from the RTO Office. Therefore, the statutory duty cast upon the registered owner must be regarded as having been duly discharged. 19. In this view of the matter, both the appeals are allowed, and the rights of recovery granted against owner and in favour of the Insurance Company by the MACT stand set aside qua the registered owner/appellant. 20. Appeals stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. 21. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2026/ak/bp This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2026 at 11:46:46