No Evidence To Establish Competence & Skills Of Driver Were Verified By Owner Of Vehicle: Madhya Pradesh HC Upholds Principle Of Pay & Recover Applied By MACT
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld MACT's decision to apply the principle of pay and recover, as there was no evidence to confirm the owner's verification of the offending vehicle's driver's skills before employment.
The Bench reiterated the legal principle established in Rishi Pal Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2022 Live Law SC 646, which laid down a twin test: Firstly, where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a license, and secondly, where the owner has verified that the driver is driving the vehicle competently. Since, the owner did not verify the driving skill to ascertain the driver's competence, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the owner challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s (MACT) order.
A Single Bench of Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal observed, “It is evident that Pradeep, owner of offending vehicle has nowhere mentioned/deposed in his testimony and has not produced any evidence to establish that before employing Sukhnandan, as driver of offending vehicle, he verified the skills of driver Sukhnandan and thereby, he satisfied himself that Sukhnandan is competent to drive the vehicle. Further, there is nothing on record to show that when Pradeep Singh Parihar employed driver Sukhnandan on offending vehicle and since when he was driving the same, prior to present accident,”
Advocate S.K Pandey represented the appellant, while Advocate Prabhanshu Shukla appeared for the respondents.
The owner of the stage carriage vehicle (appellant) had approached the High Court to challenge the award of the MACT which held that the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurance company) was not liable to pay compensatory claims and sought 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 accident. However, the driver was later found to be lacking a valid license for operating heavy transport vehicles.
Dissatisfied with the award of MACT, the owner of the vehicle argued that the driver of the offending vehicle had given him a photocopy of his driving licence and therefore he was not required to verify the same as he was ‘competent’ to drive the offending vehicle.
The Court noted that the Tribunal had applied the principle of pay and recover on the ground that it was found that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have any valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.
“Award reveals that learned Tribunal has returned its findings after taking into consideration submission of learned counsel for the appellant and also pronouncements relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant.. In this Court’s considered opinion, learned tribunal has returned its findings, which are justified by evidence on record and no interference is required in same.” the Court held.
The Bench noted that the owner of the offending vehicle had not produced any evidence to establish that before employing the driver of the offending vehicle, he verified the skills of the driver and thereby, satisfied himself that the driver was competent to drive the vehicle.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Pradeep Singh Parihar v. Smt. Rubina & Ors.
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate S.K Pandey
Respondents: Advocate Prabhanshu Shukla
