IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 124 of 1996 Date of decision: March 08, 2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited .. Appellant Vs. Satyawati and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vishal Taneja, Advocate for respondents No.9 and 10. A.N. Jindal, J This appeal preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited is against the award dated 29.9.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,88,000/- in favour of the petitioners-respondents No.1 to 8 (herein referred as 'the respondents No.1 to 8) and against the appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited (herein referred as 'the appellant') and respondents No.9 and 10. The prime argument in the instant case case made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.3 are not correct, since Satbir-respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, the Tribunal should have decided issue No.3 against the respondents No.9 and 10. The evidence led by the respondents No.1 to 8 is that the respondent No.9 was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No.HR12-697 and he was holding a valid driving licence and the said vehicle was insured with the appellant. The respondent No.9 while appearing in the witness box deposed that he obtained the licence for driving the heavy vehicle from the Licensing Authority Una, Himachal Pradesh and it bears No.S-4450/88, issued to him on 29.4.1988 and it was later on got renewed from 28.7.1991 to 28.7.1994 from the Licensing Authority, Gohana against Sr. No.5198/SD. It was again renewed by the Licensing Authority, Rohtak at Sr. No.3499/94/RTK. He tendered into evidence licence Ex.R1 whereas, in F.A.O. No. 124 of 1996 -2- order to shift the onus, the appellant did not examine any witness from any licensing authority to prove that the said licence Ex.R1 was not issued by the Licensing Authority, Una. But, as against it, the appellant has tendered into evidence a letter dated 18.9.1995 addressed by Lokesh Kumar Anand to the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Panipat,, which transpires that though the Clerk of the Licensing Authority, Una had refused to give information in writing, yet, the said driving licence was fake. In this regard it may be mentioned that the letter dated 18.9.1995 cannot be substituted as a primary evidence which was required to be led by the appellant in order to establish that the licence Ex.R1 was fake whereas the genuineness of the document could be proved by summoning the witness(s) and producing the record. However, the letter dated 18.9.1995, being an admission in their own favour was of no consequence. It may be noticed here that the letter is based on an assumption because the author of the letter has mentioned that the Clerk of the Licensing Authority, Una had refused to divulge any information in writing and he had verbally told about the same. Thus, the letter being based on here say evidence is altogether excluded from consideration. Resultantly, it would not be inappropriate to hold that the findings returned by the Tribunal qua issue No.3 are liable to be affirmed. No other argument has been raised. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. March 08, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge