FAO No.2070 to 2072 of 1996 1 and FAO No.2080 to 2082 of 1996 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH FAO No.2070 of 1996 Date of Decision: 15.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Smt.Ram Piari & ors. ....Respondents FAO No.2071 of 1996 Date of Decision: 15.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Dina Nath & ors. ....Respondents FAO No.2072 of 1996 Date of Decision: 15.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Sanjay & ors. ....Respondents FAO No.2080 of 1996 Date of Decision: 15.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Sheela & ors. ....Respondents FAO No.2081 of 1996 Date of Decision: 15.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Dharam Pal & ors. ....Respondents FAO No.2082 of 1996 Date of Decision: 15.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Smt.Roshni Devi & ors. ....Respondents FAO No.2070 to 2072 of 1996 2 and FAO No.2080 to 2082 of 1996 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for the appellant, Mr.Ashish Bansal, for Mr.S.D.Bansal, Advocate, for respondent(s) ****** K.Kannan J. (Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the driving licence produced by the driver at the trial was not genuine. The particular licence which had been seized by the police at the time of accident and which had been produced before the criminal Court was summoned and with reference to particulars contained in the said licence, evidence was led with reference to the original register that the licence said to have been issued at Solan was a fake document. At the trial, the driver produced a copy of the licence marked- RW 2/A and stated that the licence have been issued from Delhi office and this document had been filed in yet another MACT case in which he was a party before MACT, Kaithal. The Tribunal had in that case, upheld the validity of the licence and an award had been passed casting the liability on the same Insurance Company. 2. This fact that the driver had yet another licence was considered by the Tribunal and it was prepared to accept the same in view of the fact that as regards the licence- RW 2/A, an adjudication FAO No.2070 to 2072 of 1996 3 and FAO No.2080 to 2082 of 1996 had already been done in which the same Insurance Company was also a party. The adjudication amongst co-respondents can always constitute res judicata in situations where there is an inter se dispute between the respondents and an adjudication becomes necessary. 3. If a Tribunal had considered on an earlier occasion that a particular driving licence produced by the driver was genuine and the genuineness of the driving licence was a relevant fact in order to find whether the Insurance Company could be liable or not or whether it could have a right of recovery or not then that finding shall become binding between the parties if that order has not been assailed in the higher forum. The Tribunal, was therefore, justified in taking a finding of the Tribunal in an earlier proceedings on 05.05.1994 rendered by the MACT, Kaithal and constituting a binding declaration for the Insurance Company and denied to it a right to contend that the licence was not genuine without any effort on its part by securing the original register from the authority at Delhi that the licence was not genuine. 4. Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no doubt, lays down that there cannot be more then one licence for the same person but if one licence produced before the Court is not genuine and a driver contends that yet another licence which he holds is the only genuine document then there is no scope for even applying Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It would, on the other hand, prove that there could be only one genuine document FAO No.2070 to 2072 of 1996 4 and FAO No.2080 to 2082 of 1996 with a particular licence number. If another document produced by the appellant was found to be fake, there is no scope for a presumption that yet another document produced by him must also be fake. While there cannot be two documents for the same person with two different numbers in view of the statutory interdict under Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the logic cannot extend so much so as to show that both licences produced should be fake licences. If there is one genuine licence and yet another fake licence, its ends within a logic perfectly and in this case, the driver had also owned the fact that other licence which had been seized by the police and produced before the Court was a fake document. 5. The finding of the Tribunal as regards the fact that the Insurance Company has not discharged its onus is fully justified and the appeals are dismissed. 15.09.2010 (K.Kannan) sailesh Judge