http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

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provide that the amount, which is in deposit  before this Court as well as before the Tribunal shall be  allowed to be withdrawn by the claimants/respondents.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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

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. \027(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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

                       [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.