FAO No.7089 of 2011 (O&M) FAO No.7090 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. FAO No.7089 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.12.2011 Gulzar Singh ....Appellant Versus Manjit Kaur and others ...Respondents 2. FAO No.7090 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.12.2011 Gulzar Singh ....Appellant Versus Maya Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Mohit Jaggi, Advocate for the appellant ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) FAO No.7089 of 2011 (O&M) FAO No.7090 of 2011 (O&M) 2 This judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. FAO No.7089 and 7090 of 2011, filed by Gulzar Singh, the owner of the offending Tanker bearing registration No.PB 10T 9143. Both these appeal have arisen out of the common award dated 7.6.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, (for brevity 'the Tribunal') vide which the claim petition of the claimants was accepted and the appellants were held liable to pay the compensation amount. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in law and facts while passing the award. The driver of the offending tanker was holding a valid and effective driving licence. He further contended that the vehicle was insured and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount. He has placed reliance on San Baba Labh Singh vs. Santto 2008(2) Law Herald (P&H), 1134. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. It is proved on record from the statement of Harcharan Singh that on 29.3.2008, Dulla Singh while driving tanker bearing registration No.PB10T-9143 caused the accident, in which Gurdeep Singh and Maya Singh suffered injuries and Gurdeep Singh succumbed to the injuries. The same is corroborated by Ex.P1, the FIR registered under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of the Indian Penal code against respondent No.3- driver of the offending tanker, which remained unrebutted before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal framed the following specific issue: FAO No.7089 of 2011 (O&M) FAO No.7090 of 2011 (O&M) 3 “6. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence on the date of alleged accident, if so, its effect?OPR” The learned Tribunal while decided the said issued observed as under:- “... The accident took place on 29.3.2008. As per evidence of RW2 Chander Sain, the licence was endorsed for transport vehicle from 28.4.2003 to 27.4.2006 and then it was renewed from 22.5.2008 to 21.5.2014. No licence was got renewed for any purpose in favour of Dulla Singh by their office from 28.4.2006 to 21.5.2008 meaning thereby that there was no valid and effective driving licence from 28.4.2006 to 21.5.2008, including the date of accident i.e.29.3.2008. The evidence of RW Gulzar Singh regarding verification of driving licence and test drive also do not advance cause of respondents No.1 and 2, as except for the bald statement of respondent No.2, there is no iota of evidence on record to prove the fact that any test drive was conducted.” In re: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal , 2009(15) SCC 761 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “16. In the instant case, as noted above, as per the FAO No.7089 of 2011 (O&M) FAO No.7090 of 2011 (O&M) 4 certificate issued by the licensing authority, the driving licence of the deceased driver had expired on 25th October, 1991 i.e. four months prior to the date of accident on 29th February, 1992 and it was renewed with effect from 23rd March, 1992. It is not the case of the claimant that the driver had applied for renewal of the licence within 30 days of the date of its expiry. On the contrary, it is the specific case of the appellant that the driving licence was renewed only with effect from 23rd March, 1992. From a plain reading of Section 15 of the Act, it is clear that if an application for renewal of licence is made within 30 days of the date of its expiry, the licence continues to be effective and valid without a break as the renewal dates back to the date of its expiry. Whereas, when an application for renewal is filed after more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, gets attracted and the licence is renewed only with effect from the date of its renewal, meaning thereby that in the inter Regulation between the date of expiry of the licence and the date of its renewal, there is no effective licence in existence. The provision is clear and admits of no ambiguity. However, the stand of the claimant before the District and State Fora as also before us was that since the deceased driver was holding a valid licence and had FAO No.7089 of 2011 (O&M) FAO No.7090 of 2011 (O&M) 5 not been disqualified from holding an effective licence, the stipulation in the afore-extracted condition was not infringed. In our view, the argument is stated to be rejected. Admittedly, having failed to apply for renewal of the driving licence within 30 days from the date of its expiry in terms of Section 15 of the Act, the licence could not be renewed with effect from the date of its expiry and therefore, between the period from 26th October, 1991 to 22nd March, 1992, the deceased driver had no valid and effective driving licence as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act. We are convinced that during this period, he did not hold at all an effective driving licence, as required in the terms and conditions governing the policy on the date of accident i.e. 29th February, 1992. 17. As a matter of fact, in view of the clear mandate of Section 3 of the Act, the deceased driver was not even permitted to drive the insured vehicle in a public place. Furthermore, the claimant not only committed breach of the terms of the policy, he also violated the provisions of Section 5 of the Act by entrusting the vehicle to a person who did not hold a valid licence on the date of the accident. Although it was not pleaded by learned counsel for the appellant, but we fail to understand as to how the licence was and could be renewed w.e.f. 23rd March, FAO No.7089 of 2011 (O&M) FAO No.7090 of 2011 (O&M) 6 1992 after the death of the licence-holder on 29th February, 1992. In our opinion, therefore, the appellant was not liable to indemnify the claimant for the loss suffered by him in the accident of the insured vehicle.” Reverting back to the instant case, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence from 28.4.2003 to 27.4.2006 and then it was renewed from 22.5.2008 to 21.5.2014, but there was no valid and effective driving licence from 28.4.2006 to 21.5.2008, including the date of accident i.e.29.3.2008. The licence had expired about two years prior to the accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly allowed the claim petitions. Moreover, the appellant has not deposited the statutory amount at the time of institution of appeals. Therefore, these appeals are not maintainable. In view of the aforecited law in Suresh Chander Aggarwal's case (supra), no interference is warranted in the well reasoned award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, the both the appeals fail and the same are dismissed in limine. 20.12.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE