Vehicle Owner Can’t Be Expected To Verify Genuineness Of Driver’s Licence If He Was Satisfied With His Driving...
🔷 Legal Background
Owner's Liability Under the Motor Vehicles Act
Under Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the owner of a vehicle is liable if the vehicle is driven without a valid licence.
The owner’s liability arises because the owner is responsible for who drives the vehicle.
However, the scope of this liability is limited by certain considerations of reasonableness and due diligence.
Principle of Due Diligence
The vehicle owner is expected to exercise reasonable care but is not an insurer of the driver's credentials.
If the owner had no reason to suspect the driver’s licence was fake or invalid, and was satisfied with the driver's driving skills and conduct, the owner cannot be held liable for verification beyond a reasonable extent.
🔷 Judicial Pronouncements and Case Law
✅ United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for due diligence but clarified that the owner is not expected to be a detective verifying the genuineness of every document.
It was held that if the driver had a valid licence or appeared competent and the owner was satisfied with his driving, the owner cannot be held liable for the driver's fault on the ground of licence verification.
✅ New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Karunakaran (2007) 11 SCC 747
The court held that the owner cannot be expected to make an in-depth inquiry into the validity of a licence when there is no reason to doubt it.
If the driver was allowed to drive with the owner’s consent and the owner was satisfied with the driving ability, the owner’s liability does not arise simply because the licence turns out to be invalid later.
✅ United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Babu Thomas (2004) 1 SCC 429
The Supreme Court ruled that the onus of proving that the owner was negligent in permitting an unlicensed driver rests on the party alleging it.
Mere ownership of the vehicle is not sufficient to impose strict liability.
✅ National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 5 SCC 207
The court held that an owner is liable only when it is proved that the owner was negligent or careless in allowing an unlicensed driver to drive.
If the driver’s licence was genuine or the owner was not aware of any irregularity, liability cannot be fastened.
🔷 Summary of Legal Position
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Owner’s Responsibility | Owner liable if negligent in permitting unlicensed driving |
| Due Diligence Standard | Owner expected to exercise reasonable care, not strict vigilance |
| Verification of Licence | Owner not bound to verify genuineness unless suspicious |
| Satisfaction With Driving | If owner satisfied with driver’s ability, liability unlikely |
| Burden of Proof | On claimant to prove owner’s negligence in permitting unlicensed driving |
🔷 Practical Implications
Vehicle owners should ensure that drivers have valid licences but are not expected to conduct forensic verification.
If the driver has a licence and drives competently, the owner’s liability is generally limited.
Insurance claims and compensation proceedings must examine whether the owner acted reasonably before imposing liability.
🔷 Conclusion
The law balances owner’s responsibility with practical expectations. While owners must exercise reasonable care in permitting drivers, they are not insurers and cannot be held liable solely for not verifying the licence beyond reasonable satisfaction. Courts have consistently protected owners from excessive liability where there is no evidence of negligence or bad faith.
RELATED Blog
0 comments