Motor Licensing Authority neglecting to issue duplicate driving license : Driver who lost wages held entitled compensation

Delhi High Court Enhances Damages. Rohtash Singh wins additional compensation for lost wages due to Motor Licensing Authority's negligence.

In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has awarded enhanced damages to Rohtash Singh, a bus driver with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), who suffered financially due to the negligence of the Motor Licensing Officer (MLO) and Motor Licensing Authority (MLA). The court found that the authorities failed to issue a duplicate driving license, which prevented Singh from performing his duties, resulting in loss of salary. The High Court increased the damages awarded by the trial court from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 45,000, along with 9% interest from the date of filing the appeal until realization.

The case, Rohtash Singh v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, revolved around Singh's driving license, which was valid till December 20, 1996, but was lost in May 1996. Despite applying for a duplicate license, Singh was informed by the authorities that his license had expired in November 1993, leading to a prolonged period of unemployment from February 1997 to February 2001. This period of unemployment resulted in financial hardship due to the reduced salary Singh received during his desk duty at DTC.

The trial court initially awarded Singh damages for mental, physical, and financial suffering, but did not compensate him for the loss of salary due to the negligence of the MLO and MLA. The High Court, in its judgment, criticized the trial court's reasoning, emphasizing that Singh's suit was for damages due to negligence and not for recovery of back wages. The evidence presented by Singh, including salary records maintained by DTC, was deemed cogent and was accepted as valid evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

The High Court also noted that Singh was never formally terminated from his position, and his alternative desk duty was a continuation of his employment with DTC. Despite the negligence of the licensing authorities, Singh remained in service, highlighting his entitlement to compensation for the differential salary during the period of negligence.

The judgment is a significant reminder of the responsibilities of public authorities in maintaining accurate records and the consequences of their negligence on individuals' livelihoods. It underscores the importance of statutory protections and the role of the judiciary in ensuring justice for aggrieved parties.

Bottom Line:

Negligence on part of Motor Licensing Officer and Motor Licensing Authority in not issuing duplicate driving license to the appellant resulted in the appellant's inability to perform his duties as a driver, leading to loss of salary. The appellant was entitled to enhanced damages for the negligence, along with interest.

Statutory provision(s): Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 96, Evidence Act, 1872 Section 35

Rohtash Singh v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2775447