Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an appeal against an award passed by the Motor Vehicles Tribunal (Tribunal), seeking to set aside the principle of pay and recover applied by the Tribunal, a single-judge bench comprising of Achal Kumar Paliwal, J., upheld the Tribunal’s decision to apply the principle of pay and recover, dismissing the appellant’s appeal due to lack of evidence showing the owner’s verification of the driver’s skills and competency before employment, as required by the principles laid down in Rishi Pal Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2119.
The appellant filed an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against an award passed by the Tribunal, seeking to set aside the principle of pay and recover applied by the Tribunal. The offending vehicle, which was involved in the accident, was confirmed to be in compliance with all necessary legal requirements, including permit, fitness, insurance, and pollution certificates at the time of the incident. However, the driver was later found to be lacking a valid license for operating heavy transport vehicles. Consequently, the Tribunal applied the principle of pay and recover, and held that the respondent 6, National Insurance Co. Ltd., was not liable for compensatory claims.
The appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the deposition of a crucial witness and urged reliance on the case of Rishi Pal Singh (Supra). The appellant argued that the owner of the offending vehicle had taken sufficient precautions before employing the driver, thus absolving himself of liability. However, the respondent insurance company contended that the Tribunal’s findings were justified based on the overall evidence on record.
The Court noted that the Tribunal applied the principle of pay and recover as the driver of the offending vehicle was not in possession of a valid driving license at the time of the accident. The Court further noted that the testimony of the owner of the offending vehicle was examined, and it was revealed that the owner did not verify the driver’s skills before employing him. Further, there is nothing on record to show when the appellant employed the driver on offending vehicle and since when he was driving the same, prior to present accident. The Court referred to precedents, including Rishi Pal Singh (Supra), which emphasised that the owner is expected to verify the driving skills of the driver and is not required to verify the genuineness of the driving license. The Court stated that Rishi Pal Singh (Supra) laid down twin test, firstly where the owner satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and secondly owner has verified that he is driving the vehicle competently.
The Court asserted that in the instant matter the owner did not satisfy the second test as no evidence came on record that the appellant had verified the driving skill for ascertaining that he drives the vehicle competently. Therefore, in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced, authorities cited, and evidence presented, the Court held that the Tribunal’s findings were justified by the evidence on record and no interference is required in same. The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
[Pradeep Singh Parihar v. Rubina, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 2935, order dated 23-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri S.K. Pandey, Counsel for the Appellant
Shri Prabhanshu Shukla, Counsel for the Respondents
