FAO No.3083 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No.3083 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision June 28, 2010 Harleen Pal ....... Appellant Versus The Manager, ICICI and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ***** Present:- Mr. Deepak Aggarwal , Advocate for the appellant. K. Kannan, J (oral) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed, the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is at the instance of the owner of the vehicle whom the Tribunal found was driving the Car No. PB-11-2713 and the accident that resulted in collision with a moped and caused the death of the person one Nand Lal. The defence taken before the Tribunal is that he did not drive the vehicle himself and he had a driver at the time who had driven the vehicle but he had died even before the commencement of the trial. It was admittedly a case where the owner of the vehicle who was alleged to have driven did not have a valid driving licence. 3. While considering the issue whether the respondent had a valid driving licence, the Tribunal considered the fact that there was a direct evidence of Naresh Kumar, PW-2 who had seen the appellant Harleen driving at the time of the accident. The Tribunal had also found that the owner had engaged a driver Ram Singh only to escape the consequences of claim. The Tribunal adverted to the conduct of the owner who obtained a driving license issued by DTO on 29.8.2006 after the FAO No.3083 of 2010 (O&M) 2 accident took place on 13.2.2006. The enquiry before the Tribunal is summary in nature. It was not a case where there was no evidence; on the other hand, the appellant was found to have been actually driving the vehicle, it cannot be an appeal filed at the instance of the owner. 4. The Tribunal has ordered the compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company with the right of recovery granted to the Insurance Company against the owner. I do not think there is any defect or illegality in the order of the Tribunal to subject it for fresh appraisal before this Court. 5. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE June 28, 2010 archana