FAO NO.4458 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.4458 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : September 04, 2009 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. ... Appellant VERSUS Sachidanand Prasad Sinha and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Subhash Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. A.N.JINDAL, J.- CM No.20981-CII of 2009 : CM allowed. Delay condoned. FAO No.4458 of 2009 : The Insurance Company has challenged the award dated 8.5.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, whereby, the claimant – respondent No.1 Sachidanand Prasad Sinha (herein referred as `the claimant') was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.6.2007 at about 6.00 a.m, the claimant along with his wife was walking on `kacha' berm of the Ismailpur-Basantpur road, in the meantime, respondent No.2 (driver) while driving motor cycle bearing Reg.No.DL-3S-BE-1694 rashly and negligently FAO NO.4458 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] at a high speed, came and hit the claimant from behind. As a result of which, he fell down and sustained multiple injuries on his right leg, left hip, waist, shoulder and other parts of the body. Respondent No.2 fled from the scene, while the claimant was removed to AIIMS, New Delhi, from where he was shifted to Sukhda Hospital, Greater Kailash, New Delhi on the same day. As an aftermath of the accident, the claimant filed the claim petition, which was contested by the appellant and respondent No.2. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the petitioner had suffered injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on account of rash and negligent driving of motor cycle No.DL-3S-1694 by respondent No.1 Raj Kumar Prasad as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident? OPR2 4. Relief.” After appreciating the evidence led by both the parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation, as referred to above. The only ground for challenging the impugned award, as set up by the appellant – Insurance Company is that since the driver of the offending motor cycle bearing Reg.No.DL-3S-BE-1694 was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of the accident, therefore, the act FAO NO.4458 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] committed by him was in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. As such, the Insurance Company could not be held liable. The argument of the appellant Company does not weigh with the mind of this Court as respondent No.2 produced his learning licence, which was valid from 8.5.2007 to 7.11.2007, which covered the date of the accident. Thereafter, he was issued the permanent driving licence (Ex.R4), which is valid upto 4.11.2027 for driving motorcycle, WG, LMV and NT. No evidence has been led by the appellant Company in rebuttal. As such, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant cannot be sustained. No other argument has been advanced on any other issues. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal on all the issues stand affirmed. Dismissed. September 04, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE