The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a man’s appeal against an order holding him liable to pay compensation for the death of a nine-month-old girl whom he allegedly ran over in a 2015 road accident. The court held that the man’s Australian domestic driving licence did not authorise him to drive in India, as he had not produced an international driving permit or any required Indian authorisation.Justice Deepak Gupta upheld the insurer’s right to first pay Rs 2.49 lakh in compensation to the child’s family and then recover the amount from the man who was driving the car and the vehicle owner while dismissing the man’s appeal on 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 appellant (man) produced a licence issued by the competent authority in Victoria, Australia. However, he admitted in cross-examination that he did not possess any driving licence issued by an Indian licensing authority,” the court stated.2015 accidentThe case concerned a road accident that took place on August 31, 2015, in which a nine-month-old girl died. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), in May 2016, awarded a compensation of Rs 2.49 lakh and held the man who was driving the car, as well as its owner, jointly and severally liable. The insurance company was directed to pay the compensation to the child’s family first and then recover it from the driver and the car owner. The tribunal found that the man did not possess a valid driving licence authorising him to drive in India.The man was also prosecuted in a criminal case arising from the accident and acquitted. He then filed an appeal before the high court challenging the tribunal’s 2016 order. Justice Deepak Gupta said a licence issued by a foreign authority cannot automatically be treated as a driving licence valid under Indian law.Man denies driving carFrom the very beginning, the man, through advocate Prateek Mahajan, had denied that he was driving the car at the time of the accident. Even assuming that he was driving the car, he had produced a driving licence issued by the competent authority in Victoria, Australia, which was valid up to April 11, 2017 and authorised him to drive a car. The lawyer argued that the tribunal erred in ignoring the licence merely because it had not been issued or endorsed by an Indian licensing authority.Also Read | Parents’ concerns cannot override adult’s choice of life partner: Allahabad High CourtOn the contrary, the insurance company, through advocate Vinod Chaudhari, argued that the man admitted during cross-examination that he did not possess any driving licence issued by an Indian licensing authority. It stated that an Australian licence, without a valid international driving permit or the required authorisation recognised in India, did not allow him to drive a motor vehicle in a public place in India.Story continues below this adAcquittal in criminal case irrelevant: HCThe court said the man’s argument that he was not driving the car could not be accepted because the child’s father and the occupant of the motorcycle involved in the accident had stated that he was driving it. According to their statements, the car came from behind at a high speed and struck the motorcycle while overtaking it.The judge underlined that the man had not shown that the Australian licence he produced met the legal requirements for a foreign national or temporary visitor driving in India, or that it was accompanied by a valid international driving permit recognised in India. “No international driving permit valid for use in India, or any endorsement or authorisation by a competent Indian authority, was produced,” it noted.The judge clarified that a licence issued by a foreign authority cannot automatically be treated as a driving licence valid under Indian law simply because it allows the holder to drive the same category of vehicle in that foreign country.Also Read | ‘Feel sorry for citizens’: Tripura High Court flags ‘pitiable’ highways, seeks audit of NHAIThe court, hence, upheld the insurer’s right to recover the compensation from the driver and the car owner, pointing out that neither the man’s acquittal in the criminal case nor his Australian domestic driving licence gave it any reason to interfere with the insurer’s recovery rights.