FAO Nos. 3492 & 3622 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. FAO No.3492 of 2011(O&M) (in MACT No. 6 of 2009) Date of decision: 17.11.2011 Surinder Singh and another ...Appellants Versus The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another ...Respondents 2. FAO No. 3622 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Roshni Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.MS Longia, Advocate for the appellants-owner and driver (FAO No.3492 of 2011) Mr.RC Gupta, Advocate for Insurance Company (Respondent No.1 in FAO No.3492 of 2011) Mr.Ashok Giri, Advocate for the claimant (respondent No. 2 in FAO No. 3492 of 2011) **** Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. FAO No. 3492 of 2011, filed by the owner and driver of the offending Truck bearing registration No. PB-12A- 2336, and FAO No.3622 of 2011, filed by the Insurance Company, being arisen out of the same accident. In both the appeals, the award dated 3.2.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident FAO Nos. 3492 & 3622 of 2011(O&M) 2 Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (for short 'the Tribunal') has been assailed by the parties. Brief facts of the case are that on 5.11.2008, when Utsav Gleria,( since deceased) was going to his college at Landran, SAS Nagar on his motorcycle met, he with an accident with truck bearing registration No.PB-12A- 2336 being driven by the appellant No.2- Kuljit Singh, in a rash and negligent manner. He was rushed to the Civil Hospital, Kharar. Thereafter, he was referred to the PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted till the date of his death i.e. 5.11.2008. The claim petition was filed by the widowed mother of the deceased, which was accepted vide award dated 3.2.2011 and the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of ` 5,54,000/-. The driver and owner were held liable to pay the same. The recovery rights were granted to the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the owner and driver have been wrongly held liable to pay the compensation because the vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company and the driver was holding a valid driving licence. He further contends that the driving licence already exhibited, is valid for driving of Heavy Motor Vehicles. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants has placed on record Annexure A-I, communication issued by the District Transport Officer, Rupnagar to the appellant, according to which, the driving licence held by the appellant was valid to drive the heavy motor vehicle. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Keeping in view Annexure A-1, report regarding the driving FAO Nos. 3492 & 3622 of 2011(O&M) 3 licence of the appellant No.2 issued by the competent authority, which was not produced before the learned Tribunal, the present appeals i.e. FAO No. 3492 of 2011 and FAO No. 3622 of 2011 are accepted and the case is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to consider the report dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure A-1) and decide the matter afresh on the limited aspect of authenticity of the driving licence. The part payment of the awarded amount has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 24.5.2011 passed in FAO No. 3622 of 2011, therefore, the learned Tribunal shall make endeavour to decide the matter on the limited issue stated above expeditiously, preferably within six months. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal through their respective counsel on 19.12.2012. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. Registry is directed to send the record of the learned Tribunal as early as possible. 17.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE