IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 3269 of 2001 Date of Decision : April 21, 2009 Harish Nagpal .....Appellant Versus Bedo and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No. 6. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) Petition filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was accepted by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonepat on 5.3.2001 and they were awarded an amount of Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation. As Gurmukh Singh, respondent-driver was found to be not holding a valid driving licence, the respondent-Insurance Company was absolved of the liability to pay the amount of compensation and, therefore, the appellant-owner and respondent-driver were declared jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants/respondents. Aggrieved of the same, owner of the offending truck as filed the present appeal. F.A.O. No. 3269 of 2001 - 2 - The main issue in the present appeal is regarding the validity of the driving licence said to have been issued in the name of Gurmukh Singh-respondent. As per the testimony of Surinder Singh-RW1, driving liecnce bearing No. G-13754/96/RTA/SEC was not issued from the office of Regional Transport Authority, Faridabad. On the basis of the record, he deposed that only 1478 driving licence had been issued till the year 1996 and no licence in the name of Gurmukh Singh was issued. Though in his cross-examination, he tried to confuse the issue by saying that the description of the issuing authority of driving licence Ex.R1 was not eligible but learned Tribunal, after examining the aforementioned licence, held that the licence Ex.R1 was issued by the Licencing Authority, Faridabad and its holder was mentioned as Gurmukh Singh, resident of House No. 901, Railway Crossing, Bata Chowk, Faridabad. As the licence Ex.R1 was found to be a fake licence, therefore, learned Tribunal absolved the respondent-Insurance Company from indemnifying the owner of the vehicle in the matter of payment of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that apart from licence Ex.R1, Gurmukh Singh, driver was holder another driving licence issued by Licencing Authority, Amritsar. The said driver's licence bore No.17373, Ex.A1, issued in the name of Gurmukh Singh authoring him to drive HTV and tractor only. The aforementioned licence Ex.A1 was validly issued in favour of Gurmukh Singh, driver but the said licence could not be produced before the learned Tribunal and it is now F.A.O. No. 3269 of 2001 - 3 - sought to be produced by way of additional evidence by filing C.M No. 17995-CII of 2001. The claim petition had been filed on 12.8.1999 and was decided on 5.3.1991 by the learned Tribunal. In case, the driving licence Ex.A1 said to have been issued in favour of the Gurmukh Singh, driver was available, the purporting to be of Gurmukh Singh was said to have been issued on 16.6.1989. Under these circumstances, such a licence could be produced when the proceedings were pending before the learned Tribunal. At this stage, the appellant cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant states that Gurmukh Singh, driver had already left the service of the appellant-owner of the vehicle and, therefore, the appellant could not produce the driving licence Ex.A1 when the matter was pending before the learned Tribunal. A perusal of the award would reveal that Gurmukh Singh, driver, who was respondent No.1 before the learned Tribunal was duly represented there by his advocate. Even after participating in the entire proceedings, he did not bring it to the notice of the learned Tribunal that he had been issued a driving licence as has been attached with the present appeal as Annexure A.1. F.A.O. No. 3269 of 2001 - 4 - Learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that as the offending vehicle stood insured with the Insurance Company, directions could be issued to the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner and, therefore, the impugned award be set aside. Once it is held that Gurmukh Singh, driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, the Insurance Company cannot be burdened with liability to pay the amount of compensation. Terms of the insurance policy clearly envisaged that Insurance Company could be made liable only if the person driving the vehicle was holding a valid driving licence. When no valid driving licence was held by Gurmukh Singh, driver, no fault can be found in absolving the Insurance Company from the liability and instead terming that the liability to pay the amount of compensation shall be joint and several of the driver as well as the owner of the offending vehicle. In view of the above, there is not merit in the appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) April 21, 2009 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO