FAO No.1559 of 2006 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.1559 of 2006(O&M) Decided on : December 18, 2009 Satish Kumar ... Appellant VERSUS National Insurance Company and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent No.1 – National Insurance Company. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Challenge made by the owner of the offending vehicle, is to the award dated 8.1.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,51,200/- to the claimants – respondents No.3 to 5. The respondent – Insurance Company was given recovery rights against the appellant (the owner of the offending vehicle). Heard. The main grievance of the appellant is that before employing respondent No.2 Jaibir as driver, he had made bonafide enquiries regarding his driving licence, therefore, he cannot be condemned and fastened with the liability to pay the compensation, for the reason that respondent No.2 FAO No.1559 of 2006 (O&M) [ 2 ] was not holding a valid driving licence. The Tribunal on the issue relating to the validity of the licence observed as under:- “21. Since the statement of RW1, Surveyor, was not sufficient to prove the status of driving licence of Jaibir, respondent No.1, the Insurance Company further examined RW2 Sukhbir Singh, Clerk to Licensing Authority, Nuh, District Gurgaon. This witness produced record of the licence issued from his office in the year 1997 and deposed from the same that licence from Serial No.1 to 654 had been issued for light motor vehicles and from Serial Nos. 1 to 108 were issued for heavy motor vehicles. He further stated that licence No.1290/RTA/Nuh/97 i.e.Ex.R1 had not been issued by Licensing Authority, Nuh and it is a fake licence.” However, in response to the evidence led by the respondent – Insurance Company, the appellant had failed to rebut the same. Neither he himself, nor respondent No.2, his driver appeared in the witness box, as such, the onus cannot be said to have been discharged. In the circumstances, it would not be unsafe to maintain the findings returned by the Tribunal qua giving the recovery rights to the respondent – National Insurance Company, against the appellant. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. December 18, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE