The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently declined to rely on a man's foreign driving licence to exonerate him from his liability in a road accident case [Sameer Gaba v Priyanka & Others].Justice Deepak Gupta noted that Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle in a public place unless he holds an effective driving licence authorising him to drive that vehicle.Hence, a foreign driving licence will not be automatically valid in India unless it is endorsed by an Indian authority, the Court said in its verdict of September 7."A foreign driving licence does not, merely because it is valid in the country of its issuance, automatically confer a right upon its holder to drive a motor vehicle in India," the Court added. The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the driver against an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Kurukshetra.The MACT had allowed the concerned insurance company to recover the compensation amount paid by it to a road accident victim's family from the driver who did not possess a valid driving licence in India..The driver was allegedly involved in the 2015 road accident case in which a nine-month old child lost her life.He challenged the MACT ruling to the extent the insurance company was granted a right to recover the compensation payable by it from the driver and the owner of the vehicle.The tribunal had awarded ₹2.49 lakh compensation to the next of kin of the family. In appeal, the driver claimed that he was not driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. In this regard, he argued that the victim's father, while testifying in separate proceedings before criminal court, had not identified the person who was driving the vehicle.The petitioner further highlighted that he was acquitted in the criminal case. In the alternative argument, he said even if he was driving the vehicle, he possessed a driving licence issued by the competent authority in Victoria, Australia..On the aspect of foreign licence, the Court said that the petitioner had failed to show an international driving permit valid for use in India, or any endorsement or authorisation by a competent Indian authority."A licence issued by a foreign authority cannot be equated with a driving licence valid under Chapter II of the Motor Vehicles Act merely on the ground that it authorised the holder to drive a similar class of vehicle in the foreign country," the Court added..Regarding the reliance on the criminal case, the Court said that the victim's father had clearly testified before the tribunal that the petitioner was driving at a high speed and while overtaking struck the motorcycle.It added that the witness’s subsequent statement before the criminal court may have been sufficient to create a reasonable doubt in the criminal proceedings, they would not render the tribunal's finding perverse. "The standard applicable before the Tribunal being that of preponderance of probabilities the mere fact that the same witness subsequently did not identify the appellant as the driver in the criminal trial cannot, by itself, lead to a contrary conclusion," the Bench said.The Court also rejected the contention with regard to the non-examination of the vehicle owner. It said that the liability of the person who drives an offending vehicle does not depend upon proof of a formal contract of employment between him and the owner..Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal. .Advocates Prateek Mahajan and Arche Mahant represented the appellant.Advocate Vinod Chaudhari represented the respondents.[Read Order]
