F.A.O.NO. 2011 OF 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 2011 OF 1994 Date of decision:16th July, 2010 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Ram Sarup and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company denying the liability on the ground that the driver was having a licence to drive the vehicle without gear but the accident was caused by the driver driving the vehicle with gear. 2. It had come out in an evidence that he had applied only for a licence for motor vehicle with gear. The evidence of the witness has been brought out in the order. The Tribunal has dealt with the case as under:- “In the cross-examination dated 2.06.1994 on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, Sampuran Singh has stated that Jaswant Singh had applied F.A.O.NO. 2011 OF 1994 2 for licence of motor cycle without gear and with gear. That application was made for obtaining learner's licence. But lateron, he had submitted another application to have licence of motor cycle and scooter. According to the witness, he has been issued the driving licence of the scooter as the Motor Vehicle Inspector after taking test had recommended to issue the licence for the same. In the cross-examination by respondent No. 3 he has deposed that the department has no record to show that he was permitted to drive vehicle with gear. It has come in his statement dated 29.4.1994 that the fee for licence of motor cycle with and without gear is the same In the statement of Sampuran Singh, it has come to the surface that Jaswant Singh had not applied to have the driving licence of a vehicle without gear only. There is nothing to show as to why the licence has been issued of the vehicle without gear.” 3. I do not find any defect in the reasoning. The Insurance Company shall be liable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 16th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik