FAO No. 2095 of 2010 -3- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2095 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.4.2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .......... Appellant Versus Nirmala & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 15.1.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, allowing the claim petition filed by the claimant/ respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The application moved by the appellant to contest the claim on merit, was not accepted, as it was opposed and no decision was taken. The appellant / Insurance Company, therefore, cannot challenge the award on merit. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the learned Tribunal wrongly decided issue of validity of the driving licence against the Insurance Company, thereby denying the right of recovery to the FAO No. 2095 of 2010 -3- appellant. The findings, which are under challenge, read as under as under :- “20. As regards driving license, respondent no.1 was holding a valid driving license, copy of which is Exhibited RW2/A. The licence is valid for driving scooter and motor car. The offending vehicle falls within the definition of motor car. Statement by respondent no.1 that he does not know how to drive a jeep or car appears to have been made only to make out a false defence at the instance of counsel for respondent no.3. Hat it been so, respondent no.1 would have specifically stated so in his chief examination. His holding a driving license to drive a motor car shows that the witness has made false statement that he does not know how to drive a jeep or a car. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of claimants and against the respondents.” The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that once there is an admission by the driver, that he did not know how to drive the jeep or a car, the recovery right should have been granted to the Insurance Company, as in that eventuality, no other conclusion, than the one, that the driver did not have a valid driving licence, was to be drawn. On consideration, I find no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion, that this statement seems to have been made at the instance of the appellant, otherwise there was hardly any reason for the driver to make FAO No. 2095 of 2010 -3- such a statement, against the documentary evidence, as the valid driving licence which showed, that he had a licence to drive motor car was duly exhibited. The person having driving licence to drive motor car could certainly drive a jeep also. The learned Tribunal rightly held that the driver had a valid driving licence. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. 22.4.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE