FAO No.5012 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5012 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: September 25, 2009. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant(s) v. Karamdeep Kaur & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Vivek Singal, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri G.S. Chahal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Shri Aminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ORDER Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): This is an appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company challenging the impugned award only on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence at the time of accident. In support of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that driving licence in question was issued for motor cycle/scooter/car/jeep whereas the offending vehicle was a Qualis having a sitting capacity of 9+1 and the said vehicle does not fall within the definition of “motor car” as envisaged under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and as such the driving licence in question was not valid. It FAO No.5012 of 2008 -: 2 :- was further argued that since the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the appellant was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. The onus to prove this issue was upon the appellant. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the driving licence in question was issued for motor cycle/scooter/car/jeep and was valid on the date of accident. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, has recorded a finding of fact that as per the Registration Certificate of the offending vehicle, it was falling within the definition of “jeep” and, thus, the driving licence in question was valid for driving the aforesaid vehicle. The relevant para of the impugned award reads as follows:- “The onus to prove this issue was on respondent No.3. However, respondents produced on the file attested copy of licence of Pirthi Singh, respondent No.1 Ex.R3. As per the said licence the same was issued on 20.11.2001 and was valid upto 14.4.2007 that was issued for motor- cycle, scooter, car and jeep. Then as per the registration certificate of vehicles Qualis No.HR23B/6543 was a vehicle falling within the definition of jeep and the licence as such was valid for driving the said vehicle. The respondent No.1, thus, was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. This issue is so decided in favour of the respondent.” FAO No.5012 of 2008 -: 3 :- There is no evidence on record to controvert the aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal. Neither any such evidence could be pointed out by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Even otherwise, the onus to prove the issue that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, was upon the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant has not led any evidence in support of the argument, as raised before this Court and the point now sought to be raised before this Court, was not raised before the Tribunal. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. September 25, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge