F.A.O. No.5978 of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No.5978 of 2002
Date of Decision:24.12.2008
Devinder Singh and others ............... Petitioners
Versus
Rambha Devi and others ............Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: Mr.G.S. Punia, Advocate
for the appellants.
Ms. Vandna Malhotra, Advocate
for Insurance Company.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
K.KANNAN J.
****
The driver and owner of the vehicle, who had been burdened with
the Award, exonerating the Insurance Company are the appellants before
this Court. The justification for relieving the insurer was that the driver did
not have an effective driving licence on the date of accident but had renewed
the same subsequent to the date of accident.
2. At the trial Court, the Tribunal found that the official from the
RTO had produced a document showing that driving licence had expired on
16.05.1996, when the accident had taken place on 23.02.1997. The Tribunal
had adverted to the fact that the official had also deposed in his evidence
that it was possible that the driving licence could have been renewed in
some other Division of the RTO.
3. The appellants who are driver and owner of the vehicle had filed
C.M. No.1173-CII of 2003 before this Court stating that the licence had
F.A.O. No.5978 of 2002 -2-
been actually renewed but it was not filed before the Court. The copy of the
renewed driving licence had been filed showing that it had been renewed
upto 14.05.2005. However, the application had been dismissed by this
Court on 23.01.2003, stating that the licence appended to the application
was totally irrelevant to the present controversy. While it was possible to
see from the copy of driving licence that there had been a renewal, there is
nothing on the document to suggest that the renewal had been made even
before the accident at the relevant time.
4. The contention of the appellant was that so long as the driver held
a driving licence and was not disqualified from possessing one, the fact that
the driving licence had expired or the renewal had been made subsequent to
the accident was not relevant. It might be possible to make such an
inference, considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others (2004) 3
SCC 297. This judgment and catena of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Ishwar Chandra and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &
others (2007) 10 SCC 650 had been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Ram Babu Tiwari Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors (2008) 8
SCC 165. The Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered the judgment in the context
of Section 15 of Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under:-
“Section 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 date
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 date of its expiry,
the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of
its renewal:
Provided further that where the application is for the renewal of a
licence to drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the
applicant has attained the age of forty years, the same shall be
accompanied by a medical certificate in the same form and in the
same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8, and
the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 8, shall so far as may
F.A.O. No.5978 of 2002 -3-be, apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to
a learner’s licence.
Corresponding Law-Section 15(1) corresponds to Section 11(1)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act No.IV of 1939).
(2) An application for the renewal of a driving licence shall be
made in such form and accompanied by such documents as
may be prescribed by the Central Government.
Corresponding Law-Section 15(2) corresponds to Section 11(2)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act No.IV of 1939).
(3) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is
made previous to, or not more than thirty days after the date
of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such
as may be prescribed by the Central Government in this
behalf.
Corresponding Law- Section 15(3) corresponds to Section 11(3)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act No.IV of 1939).
(4) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is
made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the
fee payable for such renewal shall be such amount as may
be prescribed by the Central Government.
Provided that the fee referred to in sub-section (3) may be
accepted by the licensing authority in respect of an application
for the renewal of a driving licence made under this sub-section
if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and
sufficient cause from applying within the time specified in sub-
section (3).
Provided further that if the application is made more than
five years after the driving licence has ceased to be effective, the
licensing authority may refuse to renew the driving licence,
unless the applicant undergoes and passes to its satisfaction the
test of comptence to drive referred to in sub-section (3) of
Section 9.
Corresponding Law.-Section 15(4) corresponds to Section 11
(3-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act No.IV
1939).
(5) Where the application for renewal has been rejected, the fee
paid shall be refunded to such extent and in such manner as
may be prescribed by the Central Government.
Corresponding Law-Section 15(5) corresponds to Section 11(3-
B) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act No.IV of 1939).
(6) Where the authority renewing the driving licence is not the
authority which issued the driving licence it shall intimate
the fact of renewal to the authority which issued the driving
licence.
F.A.O. No.5978 of 2002 -4-
Corresponding Law-Section 15(6) corresponds to Section 11
(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act No.IV of
1939).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court said in Ram Babu Tiwari’s case
(supra):-
“It is beyond any doubt or dispute that only in the event an
application for renewal of licence is filed within a period of 30
days from the date of expiry thereof, the same would be renewed
automatically which means that even if an accident had taken
place with the aforementioned period, the driver may be held to
be possessing a valid licence. The proviso appended to sub-
section (1) of Section 15, however, clearly states that the driving
licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal
in the event the application for renewal of a licence is made more
than 30 days after the date of its expiry. It is, therefore, evident
that as, on renewal of the licence on such terms, the driver of the
vehicle cannot be said to be holding a valid licence, the insurer
would not be liable to indemnify the insured.”
5. The effect of this judgment on the facts at hand admits of no
doubt that the appellants are not entitled to be indemnified by the insurer.
6. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
December 24, 2008
Pankaj*