FAO No.3872 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3872 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.11.2009 Anil Kumar Kalra .......Appellant(s) Versus Sushil and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. M.B. Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is owner's appeal challenging the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind whereby the appellant has been held liable jointly and severally to pay the compensation (along with the respondent-Insurance Company) with liberty to the insurer to recover the amount of compensation paid to the claimants from the appellant. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.8.2006, the petitioner sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of Bhupinder Singh-respondent No.3 of offending vehicle owned by the appellant. Claimant-respondent No.1 filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.30 lacs along with interest from the appellant along with respondents No.2 and 3, being owner, insurer and driver of the offending vehicle. The appellant and respondent No.2 filed joint written statement pleading their false implication. Respondent No.3 filed separate written statement submitting that respondent No.3 was not holding a valid driving licence and at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, the Insurance Company FAO No.3872 of 2009 (O&M) 2 was not liable to pay any compensation. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 driver of oil tanker No.HR-46-8531 in which petitioner suffered injuries as alleged in the petition?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.1 was holding a valid driving licence on the date of accident?OPR 4. Relief.” On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.3 of the offending vehicle and held that respondent No.1 was entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,95,772/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5 % from the date of institution of the petition till realisation to be paid by the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3 jointly and severally. It is further relevant to point out here that under issue No.3, it was further held that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence and therefore, the insurer will be at liberty to recover the amount of compensation paid to the claimants from the appellant. In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal on issue No.3 arguing that there is an ample evidence on record to prove that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was renewed from the office of District Transport Office, Hisar from 8.7.2004 to 18.6.2007 and again renewed from FAO No.3872 of 2009 (O&M) 3 12.7.2007 to 10.7.2010 and thus, at the time of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence and therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation and thus, the award of the Tribunal to the extent of granting recovery rights to the respondent-Insurance Company is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgments of this Court reported as New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Gurvinder Kaur and others 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 125 and United India Insurance Company Limited v. Shanti Devi and others (2008-4) PLR 43 and has argued that it was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of policy regarding use of vehicle by a duly licenced driver and in the absence of any evidence being led by the Insurance Company, it was liable to indemnify the insured and since in the present case, the respondent- Insurance Company has not led any evidence in this regard, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be accepted. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the respondent-Insurance Company has proved on record the fact that the original driving licence issued to the driver of the offending vehicle was fake. It has come in the testimony of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Junior Assistant, Driving Licence Authority, Una, that as per the register of driving licence of their office, no licence was issued by the Authority to the driver of the offending vehicle as claimed. There is no rebuttal to the aforesaid evidence produced by the respondent-Insurance Company on record. Once it has been established on record that the original driving FAO No.3872 of 2009 (O&M) 4 licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake, the same will not be revalidated simply because the aforesaid driving licence was renewed subsequently. Once the respondent-Insurance Company has successfully discharged its initial burden by proving on record that the licence issued originally to the driver of the offending vehicle was fake, thereafter it was for the appellant to rebut the aforesaid fact by placing on record the cogent evidence to prove that the appellant has exercised reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of the policy regarding the use of vehicle by a duly licenced driver. Thus, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on the facts of the case and are of no help to him. No other point was urged. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. November 10, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE FAO No.3872 of 2009 (O&M) 5