Driving license expired

Mr.Nirav,

Please give the full particulars i.e., date of expiry of the licence and the date of the accident in question.  The licence will be remain valid for a period of one month after the date of expiry.   You may go through the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2007(10) SCC650 between Ishwar Chandra Vs. Oriental Insurance Corporation, wherein the Supreme Court had categorically held that Insurance Company cannot disown its liability only because the expiry of  the driving licence.

Dear Nirav,

This the copy of the Judgement.  You can find it in Judiciary files also.

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil)  1213 of 2007

PETITIONER:

Ishwar Chandra & Ors

RESPONDENT:

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/03/2007

BENCH:

S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 16437 of 2006]

S.B. SINHA, J :

Leave granted.

One Reshma Devi, aged about 40 years, was going to take bath at

Rajghat Ganga with her son, Respondent No.3 herein.  Driver of an Eicher

Tractor bearing Registration No. U.P.30/8423 was driving the said vehicle

rashly and negligently hit her as a result whereof, she fell down.  She died on

01.05.1995.  A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (for short, 'the Act) was filed by Respondent No. 2 herein.  The said

tractor was insured with Respondent No.1, the Insurance Company.   

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by an award dated 14.10.2004

determined the amount of compensation payable to the said respondent at

Rs.1,06,000/-.  Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.75,000/- was to be paid

to Respondent No. 2 (husband of the deceased) and Rs.31,000/- to her son,

Respondent No.3 herein. 

Respondent No.1, however, preferred an appeal thereagainst, which

was dismissed by an order dated 24.01.2005, stating : 

"We, therefore, while dismissing the aforesaid appeal

give liberty to the appellant to initiate appropriate

proceedings against the owner and driver of the vehicle

for realization of the amount, which is to be paid by the

Insurance Company in terms of the award to the third

party-claimant subject to establishing its case before the

Tribunal.

 

We further provide that the amount, which is in deposit

before this Court as well as before the Tribunal shall be

allowed to be withdrawn by the claimants/respondents. 

The balance amount shall be deposited by the Insurance

Company within two months from today before the

Tribunal.  On deposit so being made, the

claimants/respondents shall be allowed to withdraw the

same also without furnishing any security.

It will, however, be open to the Insurance Company to

recover the amount in question from the insured.  For the

purpose of recovering the same from the insured owner

of the vehicle, the insurer shall not be required to file a

suit.  It may initiate a proceedings before the Executing

Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner

was the subject matter of determination before the

Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and

in favour of the insurer.  It is further directed that before

releasing the amount, the insured owner of the vehicle

shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish

security for the entire amount, which the insurer will pay

to the claimants.  This observation is in consonance with

the view taken by the Apex Court in case of Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan and Others, AIR 2004

SC page 1630."

 

Respondent No.1, however, filed an application for review of the said

order, inter alia, on the premise that as on the date of the accident,

admittedly, the driver was not holding any valid licence in terms of the

judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran

Singh and Others [(2004) 3 SCC 297].  Relying on or on the basis of the

decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.  Nanjappan and

Others [AIR 2004 SC 1630], the said application for review was dismissed.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would

submit that although the licence held by the driver of the tractor expired on

27.08.1994, the same later on having been renewed, the Insurance Company

was liable to reimburse the amount of compensation payable by the

appellants to the claimant-respondents.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however,

supported the impugned judgment.

Section 15(1) of the Act and the first proviso appended thereto reads

as under :

"15. Renewal of driving licences. (1) Any licensing

authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving

licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect

from the dale of its expiry:

  Provided that in any case where the application

for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days

after the dale of its expiry, the driving licence shall be

renewed with effect from the date of its renewal:"

 

From a bare perusal of the said provision, it would appear that the

licence is renewed in terms of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. 

The proviso appended to Section 15(1) of the Act in no uncertain terms

states that whereas the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid

for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry, if any application for

renewal thereof is filed thereafter, the same would be renewed from the date

of its renewal.  The accident took place 28.04.1995.  As on the said date, the

renewal application had not been filed, the driver, did not have a valid

licence on the date when the vehicle met with the accident. 

In Swaran Singh (supra), whereupon the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellants relied upon, it is stated :

"45. Thus, a person whose licence is ordinarily renewed

in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed

thereunder, despite the fact that during the interregnum

period, namely, when the accident took place and the

date of expiry of the licence, he did not have a valid

licence, he could during the prescribed period apply for

renewal thereof and could obtain the same automatically

without undergoing any further test or without having

been declared unqualified therefor. Proviso appended to

Section 14 in unequivocal terms states that the licence

remains valid for a period of thirty days from the day of

its expiry.

46. Section 15 of the Act does not empower the

authorities to reject an application for renewal only on

the ground that there is a break in validity or tenure of the

driving licence has lapsed, as in the meantime the

provisions for disqualification of the driver contained in

Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 will not be attracted,

would indisputably confer a right upon the person to get

his driving licence renewed. In that view of the matter, he

cannot be said to be delicensed and the same shall remain

valid for a period of thirty days after its expiry."

This aspect of the matter is now covered by a decision of this Court in

National Insurance Company v. Kusum Rai & Others  [(2006) 4 SCC 250],

wherein this Court referring to Swaran Singh (supra), opined :

"14. This Court in Swaran Singh clearly laid down that the

liability of the Insurance Company vis-`-vis the owner

would depend upon several factors. The owner would be

liable for payment of compensation in a case where the

driver was not having a licence at all. It was the obligation

on the part of the owner to take adequate care to see that

the driver had an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle.

The question as regards the liability of the owner vis-`-vis

the driver being not possessed of a valid licence was

considered in Swaran Singh stating: (SCC pp. 336-37, para

89)

89. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a

driver to hold an effective driving licence for the

type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10

of the Act enables the Central Government to

prescribe forms of driving licences for various

categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2)

of the said section. The various types of vehicles

described for which a driver may obtain a licence for

one or more of them are: (a) motorcycle without

gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage,

(d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road

roller, and (g) motor vehicle of other specified

description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the

Act defines various categories of vehicles which are

covered in broad types mentioned in sub-section (2)

of Section 10. They are goods carriage, heavy goods

vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, invalid

carriage, light motor vehicle, maxi-cab, medium

goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle,

motor-cab, motorcycle, omnibus, private service

vehicle, semi-trailer, tourist vehicle, tractor, trailer

and transport vehicle. In claims for compensation

for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard

to the conditions of driving licences arise for

consideration before the Tribunal as a person

possessing a driving licence for motorcycle without

gear, [sic may be driving a vehicle] for which he has

no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of

driving licence for light motor vehicle is found to be

driving a maxi-cab, motor-cab or omnibus for which

he has no licence. In each case, on evidence led

before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken

whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for

one type of vehicle but found driving another type of

vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of

accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was

caused solely because of some other unforeseen or

intervening causes like mechanical failures and

similar other causes having no nexus with the driver

not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer

will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for

technical breach of conditions concerning driving

licence."

   [See Nanjappan (supra)]

In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this appeal, which is

dismissed accordingly.  However, in the facts and circumstances of the case,

there shall be no order as to costs.           

 

Thank you very much Mr Kotresh..I am a law student, employed with an LIfe Insurance Co since last 15 years.. based in Ahmedabad...Please let me know if you need me some time.