FAO Nos.4826 and 4827 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4826 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision : 01.08.2011 Ram Avtar .......Appellant Versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others .......Respondents and FAO No.4827 of 2011 (O&M) Ram Avtar .......Appellant Versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) Two appeals, bearing FAO Nos.4826 and 4827 of 2011, are being disposed of by this common judgment as the same have arisen out of the common Award dated 29.07.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon. 1 FAO Nos.4826 and 4827 of 2011 The appellant has assailed the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal to the effect that the appellant was not holding a valid driving licence; and the deceased-Vishnu Kumar and the injured-Vinod Kumar, were the gratuitous passengers. The undisputed facts are that the accident in question took place on 17.05.2009. The licence held by the appellant was valid from 07.04.1999 upto 06.04.2011, for driving motorcycle, light motor vehicle (Private) only. Subsequently, an endorsement was made for driving heavy transport vehicle, which was valid upto 27.02.2008. Admittedly, the accident has taken place on 17.5.2009. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that on the relevant date, the appellant was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. It is contended by the learned counsel that the driving licence of the appellant will be deemed to be valid as it was subsequently renewed for the period from the period 2.4.2009 to 1.4.2012. In this regard, the appellant examined Rishi Pal, Clerk, Regional Transport Authority, Nuh, as RW2, who deposed in his cross-examination that the entry in the record regarding renewal of the driving licence in question was found to be forged. The learned counsel has also made a reference to the The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Dayal Singh and others, 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) 339. However, in that case, the question involved was altogether different, i.e., the driver was found to be holding a fake driving licence whereas, in the instant case, the driver was found to be not holding a valid driving licence, therefore, the 2 FAO Nos.4826 and 4827 of 2011 facts of the cited case are distinguishable and thus, not applicable to the controversy involved herein. In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the fact that the driver was not holding valid driving licence, the deceased and the injured were the gratuitous passengers, I find no merit in the present appeals and the same are hereby dismissed in limine. There is a delay of 216 days each, in filing these appeals. However, after examining all the aspects involved in the present case, I find that the delay has also not been properly explained. Accordingly, the CM applications for condonation of delay are also dismissed. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 01.08.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 3