The Court was hearing two connected appeals filed by National Insurance Company Ltd. against compensation awards arising from the same road traffic accident. The Insurance Company had challenged the awards principally on the ground that the offending driver, Mukhter Hussain, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and had relied upon evidence suggesting that one of the licences in his possession was fake.

Justice Sanjay Dhar found that although one driving licence produced by the driver was indeed fake, the record established that he was also holding a second licence issued by the ARTO, Doda, which was genuine and had been endorsed for transport vehicles.

The Court observed, “The driver may have contravened the provisions of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for which he may be liable to be prosecuted and punished; but nonetheless, he was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.”

The appeals arose from a road accident in which a van was hit by a truck. The van driver, Rakesh Kumar, suffered fatal injuries. Anil Kumar, who was also involved in the accident, died as a result of the collision. Separate claim petitions were thereafter filed by the respective dependants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals at Jammu and Samba.

The Tribunal at Jammu awarded compensation of ₹13,19,600 along with interest at 7.5% per annum to the claimants in respect of deceased Anil Kumar. The Tribunal at Samba awarded ₹13,55,000 along with interest at 7% per annum to the dependants of deceased Rakesh Kumar.

Before both Tribunals, the Insurance Company contended that the offending vehicle's driver, Mukhter Hussain, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. The Tribunals, however, found that the Insurance Company had failed to establish this contention and consequently rejected its plea that it was not liable to indemnify the insured.

The Insurance Company approached the High Court contending that sufficient evidence existed to establish that the driver was using a fake driving licence and that the Tribunals had consequently erred in fastening liability upon the insurer.

Court's Observation

Justice Sanjay Dhar examined the evidence concerning the driving licences produced before the two Tribunals.

It was noted that the Insurance Company had examined Abdul Latief Naik, Record Keeper from the office of the ARTO, Anantnag. According to his evidence, one of the driving licence purportedly issued on 26 December 2001, stood in the name of Irshad Ahmad Bhat of Tral, Pulwama, and not in the name of Mukhter Hussain. The witness also stated before the Samba Tribunal that the licence had not been issued by the Licensing Authority, Anantnag.

The driver himself was examined before the Jammu Tribunal. He admitted that one licence pertained to him, but stated that he had not obtained it after undergoing a driving test. During cross-examination, however, he disclosed that he possessed another driving licence and was given time to produce it.

The second licence, was thereafter produced before the Tribunal. It had been issued by the ARTO, Doda, authorising the driver to operate Light Motor Vehicles. The licence had subsequently been endorsed for transport vehicles and remained valid until 23 April 2022.

The driver stated that the transport endorsement had been made in 2009 after he underwent a driving test.

The Jammu Tribunal got this second licence verified from the concerned Licensing Authority and found it to be genuine. On that basis, it concluded that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.

Justice Dhar upon examining the entire sequence, noted that the driver was admittedly in possession of two licences. One, purportedly issued by the Anantnag Licensing Authority, was found to be fake, whereas the second licence produced before the Jammu Tribunal was found to be genuine.

The Court therefore rejected the Insurance Company's contention that the driver was not holding a valid and effective licence at the relevant time.

The Bench made a distinction between the driver's possible statutory violation and the question of the insurer's liability. It observed that possession of two licences could attract prosecution under Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but that circumstance did not alter the fact that the driver possessed a genuine and effective licence when the accident occurred.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that there had been no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy insofar as the driver's licence was concerned.

The Court thus declined to interfere with either of the compensation awards, observing that it found no ground to disturb the findings recorded by the Tribunals. Document

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed both appeals filed by National Insurance Company Ltd. and upheld the compensation awards

Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Radha Devi & Others / National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sham Lal & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

Click here to read/download Judgment