Insurance company can’t presume fake driving licence without summoning licencing authority: Rajasthan High Court

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award against an insurance company, holding that an insurer cannot treat a driver’s licence as fake merely on the strength of its own investigator’s report if it fails to summon the licensing authority to verify the claim.

Justice Ashutosh Kumar, dismissing two connected appeals filed by National Insurance Company Ltd., observed that once the insurer failed to call the licensing authority to prove or verify that the licence in question was not issued by it, the licence could not be presumed to be fake.

The Court observed:

“It cannot be presumed that the driving licence issued in favour of the respondent-driver was a fake one as the Insurance Company failed to call the licencing authority to prove or verify the fact that such authority did not issue that licence.”

Both appeals — S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2830/2006 and the connected S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2880/2006 — were filed by the Insurance Company against a common judgment and award dated Jun 21, 2006, passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, in Claim Petition Nos. 397/2005 (Sultan Singh & Ors. v. Mahavir & Anr.) and 398/2005 (Parmeshwar v. Mahavir & Anr.), by which the Tribunal had allowed both claim petitions and awarded compensation to the claimants.

Although the appeals were filed on multiple grounds, counsel for the Insurance Company confined her arguments to a single plea: breach of policy condition. It was contended that the driver of the offending vehicle, respondent-Mahavir, did not hold a valid driving licence at the relevant time. The Insurance Company relied on the evidence of its Investigator, who claimed that the licence produced by the driver was purportedly issued by the DTO, Guwahati, but that during inquiry, the DTO Guwahati was found not to have issued any such licence. On this basis, it was argued that there was a breach of the policy condition qua the driver, and the Insurance Company could not be held liable to satisfy the award.

Counsel appearing for respondent-Mahavir opposed the appeals, submitting that it is well settled that an Insurance Company is duty bound to prove that a driving licence was not issued by the competent authority and was a fake one, and that this cannot be presumed merely on the statement of the insurer’s own Investigator. Relying on a Coordinate Bench decision of the High Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Moda Ram & Ors. (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 516/1997, decided on Jul 28, 2004), it was submitted that where no evidence is led to prove a fact, that fact cannot be presumed, and that the Tribunal had rightly decided the licence issue against the Insurance Company.

Examining the record, the Court noted that it was an admitted position that the Insurance Company had not attempted to call the licencing authority at Guwahati to prove or verify that the licence at Exhibit-10 was not issued by it. Applying the principle in Moda Ram, the Court held that in the absence of such evidence, it could not be presumed that the licence issued in favour of the respondent-driver was fake. The Court further noted that counsel for the Insurance Company was not in a position to controvert the principle laid down in Moda Ram.

Finding no merit in either appeal, the Court dismissed both S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2830/2006 and S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2880/2006, along with any pending applications.

Title: National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Parmeshwar & Anr. (connected with National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sultan Singh & Ors.)

Case No.: S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2830/2006 (connected with S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2880/2006)

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:26893]

Counsel for appellant: Ms. Sunita Choudhary

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Sanjay Mehla with Ms. Sunita Mehla