F.A.O.NO. 1088 OF 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1088 OF 1995 Date of decision:12th October, 2010 National Insurance Company Limited through the Administrative Officer, Regional Office, Sector 35, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Ram Niwas and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate, for the claimants. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal, challenging the award on the ground that the driver of the insured's vehicle was not duly licenced and that futher the Tribunal was in error in finding the insured's vehicle to have contributed to the extent of 50%. The contention was that FIR had been lodged only against the other vehicle insured with United India Insurance Company Limited respondent No. 5 before this Court. 2. The Tribunal's assumption of negligence was by its finding F.A.O.NO. 1088 OF 1995 2 that the collision took place at the middle of the road and therefore, the mere fact that FIR had been lodged against the driver of the vehilce which was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited was irrelevant. The Tribunal has taken the decision on due consideration of all relevant evidence and I see no scope for interference, particularly when the insurer cannot seek reversal on an issue which it cannot join to contest. Therefore, I affirm the finding of the Tribunal that both the vehicles had contributed in equal measure to the accident and that the appellant/insurer is liable to satisfy the claim as determined by the Tribunal . 3. There is however, another issue where the Tribunal has not properly appreciated. There has been a contention by the Inusrer that the driver of the insured's vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The licence is said to have been issued by the RTI Hyderabad and the Insurance Company had moved an application during the course of trial on 21.10.1994, for appointment of a Local Commissioner for recording the evidence of witnesses, in order to prove the legality and validity of the driving licence. The application was dismissed on 9.11.1994 and the dismissal itself has been urged as a ground of appeal, as erroneous. The issue of driving licence is certainly relevant and one of the permissible defences for the insurance company. The Tribunal ought to have offered to the insurer the opportunity to secure such evidence. The claimants themselves would not be in any way affected for, this is only to settle the dispute inter se between the F.A.O.NO. 1088 OF 1995 3 insurer and the insured. 4. The award of the Tribunal is set aside only as regards the issue relating to the validity of the driving licence of the driver of the insured at the relevant time. I give an opportunity to insurance company to take steps to produce the evidence. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for consideration of the issue relating to driving licence only for disposal in accordance to law. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed with reference of other issues. 5. Parties are directed to appear before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak on 19.11.2010. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 6th October, 2010 Shivani Kaushik