( 2025:HHC:44898 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No.315 of 2023 Reserved on: 16.12.2025 Date of decision: 22.12.2025 ________________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar ...Appellant Versus Satish Kumar and others …Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Prem Chand Verma, Mr. Aakash Thakur, Mr. Varun Thakur & Ms. Riddhi, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate, respondents No.1 to 9. Mr. Chandan Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.10. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant/Owner of the vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”), under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “MV Act”), against the award dated 04.08.2023, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Mandi, District Mandi, HP, in Claim Petition No.17 of 2014, with a prayer to set aside/modify the impugned award. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the petitioners (respondents No.1 to 9 herein) 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:44898 ) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act, whereby they sought compensation to the tune of Rs.20,70,000/- on account of death of Shri Murari Lal, being his Class-I legal heirs. It was averred by the petitioners that on 30.06.2008, when Murari Lal was waiting for a bus to Mandi, alongwith other colleagues, at village Nagchala, then at about 3:30 PM, a car (Tavera) bearing registration No.PB-01R-4551 came from Sundernagar side, which was being driven by respondent No.3 (respondent No.11 herein) in a rash and negligent manner, hit the same against Murari Lal on the extreme corner of the road, as a result of which, he suffered multiple injuries, including head injury and he became unconscious at the spot. He was taken to Harihar Hospital, Gutkar, from where he was referred to Zonal Hospital, Mandi, where he remained admitted upto 07.07.2008 and he also remained under treatment in PGI Chandigarh regarding MRI. It was further averred that due to the head injury, Murari Lal lost his memories and he remained under continuous treatment in different hospitals and ultimately, he died on 27.06.2011. The petitioners submitted that they spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- on the treatment of the deceased. 3. As per the petitioners, at the time of his death, the deceased was 54 years old and he was working as a regular Class-IV employee in the Forest Department and he was also looking after and managing the entire household and agricultural business and his 3 ( 2025:HHC:44898 ) monthly income was more than Rs.20,000/- from all sources. Hence, the petitioners sought a compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1-Insurance Company, in its reply, took preliminary objections of all the pleas in its defense as available to it under Sections 134(c), 147, 149, 157 and 170 of MV Act. On merits, it was averred that the petitioners had disclosed highly exaggerated monthly income of the deceased without any basis. It was also averred that respondent No.2 did not supply the documents of the vehicle in question to the insurance company. 5. Respondent No.2/owner of the vehicle (appellant herein), in his reply, averred that respondent No.3 was not driving the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner and a false case was registered against the driver/respondent No.3. He further averred that no accident had occurred with his vehicle and the deceased was hit by some other vehicle and there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.3. 6. In his reply, respondent No.3/driver of the vehicle, took the preliminary objections regarding maintainability and estoppel. On merits, it was averred that the accident had not occurred due to his rash and negligent driving, rather it was the deceased himself, owing to whose negligence, the accident had taken place because the deceased at once came in front of the vehicle being driven by him. It 4 ( 2025:HHC:44898 ) was denied that the death of the deceased was caused on account of the accidental injuries and submitted that the accident had taken place on 30.06.2008, whereas, the deceased had died on 27.06.2011, after a period of about three years. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 14.03.2018:- “1. Whether the deceased Murari Lal died in a motor vehicle accident, due to rash and negligent driving of Tavera car, bearing registration No. PB-01R-4551, being driven by respondent No.3 Deepak Sharma on 30.06.2008 at 3:30 pm at village Nagchala on NH-21, situated within the jurisdiction of P.S. Balh, District Mandi, H.P., as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, to what extent, if so, from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR-3. 4. Whether the petitioners are estopped by own act and conduct to file the present petition, as alleged? OPR-3 5. Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-1. 6. Whether the respondent No. 3 was not having valid and effective licence at the time of the alleged accident, as alleged? OPR-1 7. Relief.” 8. The parties led their evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the claim petition was allowed and the petitioners were held entitled to Rs.22,61,428/-, with cost of Rs.3,000/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition, till the deposit of the amount by the respondents No.2 and 3 and they were jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of 5 ( 2025:HHC:44898 ) compensation, being the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle, preferred the instant appeal against award dated 04.08.2023 passed by the learned Tribunal below, with a prayer to set- aside the impugned award to the extent that the Tribunal below had held the owner and the driver jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 9 and learned counsel for respondent No.10 and also carefully examined the entire record. 11. It may be pertinent to mention here that, during pendency of the present appeal, the appellant had filed an application, being CMP No.18585 of 2025, under Order 41, Rule 27, read with Section 151 of CPC to place on record the driving licence of the driver, i.e. respondent No.11. It has been mentioned in the said application that while employing respondent No.11 as driver, the appellant had duly checked his driving licence and was fully satisfied that he was competent enough to drive the vehicle. It was further averred that the licence of the driver was deposited before the learned JMIC, Court No.4, Mandi, HP in case titled as State of HP Vs. Deepak Sharma in FIR No.214 of 2008, dated 30.06.2028, Police Station Balh, District Mandi, HP, in which, respondent No.11/driver was acquitted and copy of his driving 6 ( 2025:HHC:44898 ) licence had also been annexed with the application as Annexure A-1. Thereafter, respondent No.10/insurance company was called upon by this Court to conduct verification of the driving licence (Annexure A-1) and after verification of the same, the Area Legal Manager of the insurance company had filed an affidavit, wherein he deposed that the said driving licence was found to be genuine. Para-2 of the aforesaid affidavit is reproduced as under:- “2. That the driving licence bearing number 9517/NDL/96-97, dated 13.02.1997 issued in the name of Sh. Deepak Sharma, supplied to us by the appellant has been verified by the District Transport Officer Hoshiarpur and the same is found to be genuine as per report received from the office of RTO Hoshiarpur and was valid up to 12.02.2017 for driving LMV and MCWG.” 12. Perusal of the impugned award dated 04.08.2023 shows that the learned Tribunal below had held that since the driver himself had not appeared as witness and had also not placed the copy of his driving license on record, therefore, an inference had been drawn that respondent No.3 was not having any driving license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, which amounted to violation of the mandatory terms and conditions of the insurance policy and violation of rules of MV Act. Para-36 of the impugned award dated 04.08.2023 is reproduced as under:- “36. Onus to prove these issues is on the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has taken the pleadings that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and respondent No.3 driver was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of the alleged accident. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle 7 ( 2025:HHC:44898 ) and has tendered on record the copy of RC as Ext. RW-1/A and tendered copy of insurance cover note as Mark X and perusal of the these documents reveals that said vehicle is owned by the respondent No.2 and as per cover note Mark-X, the policy starts form 05.07.2006 and valid uptill 04.07.2007 with respect of vehicle bearing registration no. PB-07R-4551, as such, at the time of accident the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company, respondent no.1. The respondent no. 3 is a driver, who has admitted the accident but has neither appeared himself as witness nor placed on record copy of his driving license, meaning thereby, an inference can be drawn that respondent No.3 was not having any driving license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, which amounts to violation of the mandatory terms and conditions of the insurance policy and violation of rules of Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, issues No. 5 & 6 are decided in favour of the respondent No.1.” 13. After drawing an adverse inference that the driver was not having any driving license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, the appellant/respondent No.2, being owner and respondent No.11, being driver, were jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioners (respondents No.1 to 9 herein). 14. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.10/Reliance General Insurance Company Limited at the time of accident. Now, it has also come on record that the driving licence, being possessed by respondent No.11-driver at the time of the accident in question, was a genuine one. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice, the driving licence is ordered to be taken on record. 15. In a similar situation in Ranjan Sharma Vs. Dipti Malakar and others, (2020) 11 SCC 341, the owner before the Tribunal was 8 ( 2025:HHC:44898 ) proceeded against ex-parte and the Tribunal below held that as the driving licence had not been laid before the learned Tribunal, the liability ought to be fastened on the owner of the vehicle and the appeal, against the award of the Tribunal, filed by the owner of the vehicle was dismissed for default. The review petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court seeking recall of the aforesaid order. Along with the review petition, a copy of the insurance policy and the driving licence was enclosed. The High Court, however, refused to consider the review petition. The owner had filed appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was held in paras-4 and 5 of the aforesaid judgment, which are reproduced as under:- “4. Having considered the matter and taking into account the fact that the insurance policy and the driving licence was laid before the High Court we are of the view that the same ought to have been taken on record and appropriate orders should have been passed. As the High Court failed to so act the order of the High Court is liable to be corrected which we accordingly do. 5. Taking into account the insurance policy insuring the vehicle for a period during which the accident had occurred and the driving licence of the driver which appears to be in order we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the compensation amount be paid by the Insurer to the person(s) entitled. The amount ordered to be deposited in this Court, if not withdrawn by the claimant(s), shall be returned to be appellant along with interest, if any, forthwith upon due verification. If the aforesaid amount has been withdrawn by the claimant(s) necessary adjustment(s) will be made by the Insurer including return of such amount to the appellant. The amount of compensation shall be paid by the Insurer to the claimant(s) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 16. In the case on hand also, as the driving licence possessed by the driver was found to be valid and effective and there is no other 9 ( 2025:HHC:44898 ) breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as such, respondent No.10/insurance company shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioners (respondents No.1 to 9 herein). 17. Consequently, in view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant/owner is allowed, without disturbing the findings of the learned Tribunal below with respect to the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal below in favour of the petitioners. However, the amount of compensation shall now be paid by respondent No.10/insurance company, instead of appellant-Vinod Kumar and respondent No.11-Deepak Sharma jointly and severally, who are now exonerated from paying the amount of compensation to the petitioners. The amount deposited in this Court by the appellant, if not withdrawn by the petitioners, shall be returned to him along with interest, if any, forthwith upon due verification. If the aforesaid amount has been withdrawn by the petitioners, necessary adjustment(s) will be made by the Insurance Company, including return of such amount to the appellant. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge December 22, 2025 (V.Himalvi)