Pankaj Mithal, J. - (1.) THIS First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) by the insurance company arises out of the judgment order and award of the Tribunal dated 14.1.2003 passed in MACP No. 33/70/93 (Jagdish Singh and another Vs. Sushil Kumar Shukla and another).
(2.) A school going six and half year old boy of class II was crushed to death by the speeding tempo No. UP-76-9098. The tempo which was owned by Sushil Kumar Shukla was insured with New India Insurance Company Limited. It was being driven by the driver Raj Kumar @ Raju. On the claim petition being preferred under Section 166 of the Act by the parents of the deceased boy, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with 9% interest from the date of presentation of the petition till its payment and the insurance company was held liable to pay the same. The only point for determination which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant New India Insurance Company Limited is that at the time of the accident the driver of the tempo was not having a valid licence as his licence had expired on 24.1.1992 and as such since the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the insurance company is not liable for the payment of compensation. It is not in dispute that the accident took place on 5.2.1993. The driver of the vehicle was having a licence to drive tempo but admittedly the validity of the said licence expired on 24.1.1992. The driver had not applied for the renewal of the licence. Therefore, the licence had lapsed and as such the driver was not possessed with any licence on the date of the accident. However, the Tribunal in spite of recording a finding that the driver was not having a valid licence on the date of accident held that as he had been issued the driving licence, he was a person competent to drive the vehicle and as such the insurance company alone is liable to pay the compensation.
(3.) THE scheme of the Act is sufficiently clear. Section 3 of the Act provide that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in public place unless he holds an "effective driving licence" issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle. Section 5 of the Act mandates that no owner or person in-charge of the motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the conditions of Section 3 of the Act to drive the vehicle. In short, it puts an obligation upon the owner of the motor vehicle to ensure that no person other than a person having a valid driving licence drives the vehicle. Section 15 of the Act provides for the renewal of the driving licence by the licensing authority on an application in this regard. A plain reading of the above provision demonstrates that on application of renewal of a driving licence should normally be made within a period of 30 days of the expiry of the licence. THE licensing authority has no power to suo motu renew the driving licence except on an application for renewal. THErefore, application for renewal of driving licence is sine quo non for its renewal otherwise the licence shall lapse. However, where renewal is applied after 30 days of the expiry of licence and the application is granted, the renewal shall have effect from the date of renewal and not from any earlier date. Admittedly in the present case the licence granted to the driver was valid only up to 24.1.1992. No application for its renewal was made within a period of 30 days prescribed and not even till the date of accident i.e. 5.2.1993. Thus, the licence of the driver had expired and had lapsed. He was therefore, not having any licence to drive the motor vehicle on the date of the accident. In the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Lehru and Others JT 2003 (2) SC 595, it was observed that 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) of the Act. Once the owner has checked that the driver possesses a valid driving licence which on the face of it is genuine, the owner is not expect to explore and find out whether the licence produced by the driver had been issued by the competent authority or not. Since in that case the owner had not only examined the driving licence produced by the driver but also took driving test of the driver and has come to the conclusion that he was competent to drive the vehicle, it was held that there was no breach of Section 149(2) (a) (ii) of the Act and the insurance company would not be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation. The above principle laid down had been followed and reiterated by the Supreme Court in JT 2007(10) SC 122 Lal Chandra Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited.;