Not Undergoing Training Course To Upskill Driving Can’t Be Brushed Aside As Technical Breach In Motor Accident Case: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeals against the Orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which upheld the Orders of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
The Supreme Court observed that not undergoing a training course to upskill the driving cannot be brushed aside as a technical breach not contributing to the motor accident.
The Court observed thus in Civil Appeals preferred against the Orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which upheld the Orders of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT).
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “We hasten to add that we may not be misunderstood as agreeing to the corollary to the argument that a licence holder without the endorsement under Rule 9, could drive an empty goods vehicle intended to carry hazardous goods, designed specifically for that purpose. The breach of non compliance of the statutory requirement to undergo a training course to upskill the driving efficiency and product safety cannot be brushed aside as a technical breach not contributing to the accident.”
AOR Tushar Bakshi represented the Appellant while AOR T. Mahipal represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant was the owner of the offending vehicle involved in the motor accident, in which the breadwinners of the claimants’ family, who were respectively; riding a bicycle and a pedestrian, died in the accident involving an oil tanker. An FIR was registered against the driver of the oil tanker which was allegedly rashly and negligently driven, by reason of which it hit the bicyclist and the pedestrian. The MACT found negligence based on the FIR and the deposition of an eyewitness.
The awards were passed in the Claim Petitions, the quantum of which was not challenged by the owner of the offending vehicle either in the High Court or the Supreme Court. Having fixed the quantum, the MACT directed the Insurance Company to pay the award amounts and recover it from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, since the driver did not have a valid licence to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods. Appeals were filed before the High Court by the owner of the oil tanker and the Review Applications were also filed, however, both stood rejected. Hence, the Appellant was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “As has been held in Swaran Singh it is incumbent on the Court/Tribunal considering a case of a licensee driving another type of vehicle, for which he has not obtained a licence, to take a decision as to whether this fact was the main or contributory cause of negligence. This factum of absence of licence to drive another type of vehicle is inconsequential if that is not the main or contributory cause of accident.”
The Court further agreed with the findings of the High Court that the production of the certificate at the stage of the Appeal is not worthy of acceptance looking at the contours of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).
“Admittedly, the certificate was not produced before the Tribunal and hence, there is no question arising of the Court from which the appeal arises having refused to accept the evidence proffered. There was also no explanation for non-production of the certificate before the Tribunal; which was produced at the appellate stage for the first time”, it added.
The Court clarified that only if there is a satisfactory explanation for the non-production before the original Court, i.e. despite exercise of due diligence or the same was not within the knowledge of the party or it could not be produced despite exercise of due diligence, could there be an acceptance of the document at the appellate stage.
“In the present case, not only was there any explanation offered by the owner of the vehicle, but also the driver was present before the Tribunal and examined; when such a contention was not taken by him. The transport vehicle driving licence produced by the driver, admittedly did not have an endorsement. The driver also did not have a claim that he had undergone a training as prescribed under the Rules; despite being cross-examined on the point of absence of a valid license”, it also said.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeals and affirmed the direction to the insurance company to pay the amounts to the claimants and recover it from the owner of oil tanker.
Cause Title- M/s. Chatha Service Station v. Lalmati Devi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 468)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Tushar Bakshi and Advocate Amit Pai.
Respondents: AOR T. Mahipal and Advocate Rohit Kumar Sinha.
