Punjab and Haryana High Court: In an appeal challenging the recovery rights granted to the insurer in a motor accident compensation claim, a Single Judge Bench of Deepak Gupta, J., held that an Australian domestic driving licence does not automatically entitle its holder to drive a motor vehicle in India. The Court observed that, in the absence of a valid International Driving Permit or any authorisation recognised under Indian law, such a licence cannot be treated as a valid and effective driving licence under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court consequently upheld the insurer’s right to recover the compensation amount from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
Background
The appeal was filed against the award dated 27 May 2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, to the limited extent that the insurance company was granted recovery rights. The case arose from a motor vehicular accident dated 31 August 2015, in which a nine-month-old child lost her life. The Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹2,49,500 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The insurer was directed to satisfy the award in the first instance, with liberty to recover the amount from the driver and owner of the vehicle as the appellant did not possess a valid and effective driving licence.
The appellant submitted that he was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. He relied on his subsequent acquittal in the criminal case and the statement of a witness recorded during the criminal trial to contend that his identity as the driver was doubtful. He further submitted that he possessed a driving licence issued by the competent authority in Victoria, Australia, which was valid up to 11 April 2017 and authorised him to drive a car.
The insurance company, on the other hand, submitted that the findings recorded in a criminal prosecution were neither binding nor determinative of claim proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which are decided on the principle of preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. It was further contended by the respondent that the testimony of a witness in separate criminal proceedings could not automatically be treated as substantive evidence in claim proceedings, therefore as per the evidence placed before the Tribunal, the appellant had been identified as the driver of the offending vehicle. The insurer also submitted that the appellant did not possess a valid driving licence recognised under Indian law, as he held only an Australian licence which did not entitle him to drive a motor vehicle in a public place in India. Therefore, the grant of recovery rights was justified.
Issues before the Court
-
Whether the finding that the appellant was driving the offending vehicle suffers from any perversity?
-
Whether the driving licence issued by the Australian authority constituted a valid and effective driving licence for driving the offending vehicle in India.
Law and Analysis
Issue 1: Identity of the Driver and Effect of Acquittal
While considering the issue, the Court held that the contention that the appellant was not driving the offending vehicle could not be accepted. It noted that the father of the deceased child (PW 1), who is also an occupant of the motorcycle involved in the accident, had specifically submitted before the Tribunal that the car was driven by the appellant. The Court observed that despite being subjected to lengthy cross-examination, his testimony remained unshaken and was supported by other evidence including the FIR lodged on the date of the accident, the report under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and other contemporaneous material. The Court also took note of the appellant’s admission that he had been arrested and challenged in connection with the accident and had not lodged any complaint alleging false implication.
The Court referred to Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530; Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656 and Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC, (2020) 13 SCC 486 and opined “It is well settled that proceedings before a Claims Tribunal are not governed by the strict standard of proof applicable to a criminal prosecution. Negligence and involvement of the offending vehicle are required to be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.”
The Court, while examining the evidence, observed that merely because the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot automatically escape liability in the compensation proceedings arising from the same accident.
The Court acknowledged that although the subsequent statement made by PW 1 and the acquittal created an inconsistency regarding the identity of the driver, they were not sufficient to displace the Tribunal’s finding, considering the fact that the appellant himself had failed to produce any independent evidence to show that another person was driving the car at the relevant time. The Court also held that the non-examination of the owner of the vehicle did not advance the appellant’s case as his liability depended on whether he was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and not on proof of any formal employment relationship with the owner.
The Court held that since the Tribunal’s conclusion was based on the principle of preponderance of probabilities and was supported by the eyewitness testimony, the FIR, police records and other material on record, it found no sufficient ground to interfere that the appellant was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.
Issue 2: Validity of the Australian driving licence
The Court observed that Section 3, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prohibits any person from driving a motor vehicle in a public place unless he holds a valid and effective driving licence authorising him to drive that vehicle. It noted that the appellant, during cross-examination, admitted that he did not possess any driving licence issued by an Indian licensing authority. Further, although the appellant claimed that his earlier Indian driving licence had been deposited with the Australian authority, he failed to produce any record or particulars thereof. The Court also noted that while the appellant had produced an Australian domestic driving licence issued by the competent authority in Victoria, Australia, he had neither produced a valid international driving permit nor any other authorisation recognised under Indian law permitting him to drive in India.
The Court referred to a similar issue in Dilpreet Singh v. United India Insurance Company Limited Goryana, (2014) SCC OnLine P&H 25137 and held, “A licence issued by a foreign authority cannot be equated with a driving licence valid under Chapter II of the Motor Vehicles Act merely on the ground that it authorised the holder to drive a similar class of vehicle in the foreign country.”
The Court, therefore, held that the Tribunal committed no error in holding that the appellant was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.
Decision
In view of its findings that the appellant was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and that he did not possess a valid and effective driving licence recognised under Indian law, the Court found no illegality or perversity in the award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the insurance company was directed to satisfy the award in the first instance, with liberty to recover the compensation amount from the appellant-driver and the owner of the vehicle.
[Sameer Gaba v. Priyanka, Case No. FAO-6604-2016, decided on 7-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. Prateek Mahajan and Ms. Arche Anant, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Chaudhari, Advocate
