Vehicle Owner Not Expected To Verify From Licence Issuing Authority Whether Licence Of Driver Is Fake Or Not: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed the owner of a vehicle employing a driver can only look at the licence produced by the person seeking employment and is not expected to verify from the licence issuing authority whether the licence is fake or not. 

The Court also held that there is vicarious liability for any negligence of the driver upon the owner of the vehicle and there can be no suspicion raised merely because the owner had produced the driving licence before Court.

The Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V Anjaria observed, “As has been rightly held by the precedents above noticed, the owner of a vehicle employing a driver can only look at the licence produced by the person seeking employment and is not expected to verify from the licence issuing authority whether the licence is fake or not.”

Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayan represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Dr. Manish Singhvi represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

The Appellant was a truck owner, involved in an accident in which nine persons lost their lives and two sustained injuries. The insurance companies, both of the truck and the van, were found to be compositely negligent, apportioned at the rate of 75:25, and paid the compensation to the claimants.

The Appellant contended that the High Court has gone on surmises and conjectures in presuming that the Appellant had colluded with its driver to obtain a fake licence.

While the Respondent-Insurance Company contended that both the licences produced were fake. It was submitted that the registered owner of the truck, therefore, can be safely found to have been negligent while entrusting the vehicle to the driver.

It was also submitted that the findings of the High Court were correct and the insurance company was entitled to recover the amounts from the Appellant.

Court’s Observation

The issue before the Supreme Court was limited to the extent of e “pay and recover” directions issued by the High Court in favour of the insurer and against the insured owner of the truck.

The Bench relied on a catena of judgements and noted that there was no substance in the argument of the Respondent-Insurer that there was a collusion between the owner and the driver of the truck. The Court emphasised that the owner of the truck was not an individual but a company. “Undisputedly, even if the tortfeasor is the driver, the liability for any negligence of the driver rests on the owner of the vehicle, vicariously. There can be no suspicion raised merely because the owner had produced the driving licence before the Court. It only indicates that the owner had been diligent enough to procure the driving licence from the driver and produce it before the Tribunal, so as to validly raise a case for indemnification by the insurer”, the Court added.

Further, the Court underscored that the owner of a vehicle employing a driver can only look at the licence produced by the person seeking employment and is not expected to verify from the licence issuing authority whether the licence is fake or not.

“The High Court had erred in finding that there was collusion between the employer and the employee merely for the reason of the driving licence having been produced by the employer and the driver having not contested the claim. The driver, as has been noticed in a number of decisions of this Court, would have kept himself away from the box, for fear of incriminating himself; since a prosecution was pending against him. In any event, the vicarious liability to satisfy the damages caused by the negligence of the employee is on the employer, the later of whom has to contest the matter.”, the Supreme Court observed.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) V. National Insurance Company Ltd. Ors. (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 1204)

Click here to read/download Judgment