CR No.7430 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7430 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:15.11.2010. Smt. Ram Rati and others ...Petitioners Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd., Rohtak ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Yashwinder Paul Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.09.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani [for short “Tribunal”] by which an application filed by the petitioners for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. The petitioners filed a claim petition in order to seek compensation on account of death of Ram Pal. While the case was at the stage of rebuttal and arguments, an application was filed by the petitioners for additional evidence to produce attested copy of driving license bearing No.2812/Farrukhabad/99 dated 21.10.1999. However, admittedly, the petitioners had earlier filed driving license (Ex.P3) of deceased Ram Pal which was alleged to have been issued by the Licensing Authority, Mathura. The said driving license has been proved to be fake by the respondents by examining Licensing Authority, Mathura as RW1 who had deposed that driving license No.1286 dated 22.02.2000 (Ex.P3) was issued in the name of Chander Pal S/o Ram Parshad, resident of Nangla, Tehsil CR No.7430 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ****** Mahaban, District Mathura and not in the name of Ram Pal (deceased). At the fag end of the trial, the petitioners sought to produce another driving license No.2812/Farrukhabad/99 dated 21.10.1999, but they failed to produce the original driving license or even duplicate thereof, rather they had produced along with application a photostat copy of the said driving license and in the Court an attested copy thereof. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application, inter alia, observing that the attested copies are not recognized under the law, no person can possess more than one driving license and also that on a bare perusal of the said document, which is sought to be produced on record, seems to be fake. Aggrieved against the impugned order of the learned Tribunal, present revision petition has been filed, in which learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the procedure is the handmaid of justice. The Court should not have examined the document sought to be produced so critically at this stage. However, he could not satisfy the Court as to why deceased Ram Pal was having two driving licenses; while under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, no person is allowed to keep more than one license. Further, he also could not explain as to why the deceased was having a fake license which was initially produced on record and why the original driving license, which is sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, has not been produced before the Court. In the absence of a cogent reply, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the additional evidence should have been allowed by the learned Tribunal is without any substance. Hence, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. November 15, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE