FAO No.5841 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5841 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 31.05.2011 Madan Lal son of Shri Har Chandi, resident of village Mirjapur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad and another ......Appellants Versus Smt. Dharam Pali, wife of Shri Bachan Singh and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is filed at the instance of the owner and driver contending that the finding rendered by the Tribunal that the driver did not have a valid driving licence was not correct. At the trial, the insurance company had examined one Gulshan Kumar, Senior Clerk, RTO, Agra to testify to the copy of the driving licence which was said to have been issued in the name of the driver Ajay Shrivastav and it was made only for driving motor cycle. The Tribunal found that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and therefore, proceeded to make the insurance company liable and provided also a right of recovery against the owner and driver. 2. At the Appellate Court, for the first time, an application is filed for reception of additional evidence of a licence purported to have FAO No.5841 of 2010 (O&M) -2- been issued by the Government of Nagaland. There is no reason given as to why this document was not produced at the time of trial. Again at the time when the insurance company was taking steps to bring evidence on the invalidity of the driving licence on which the petitioners were relying on by summoning and examining witnesses from the licensing authority, even at that time the owner or the driver of the vehicle did not contend that there existed yet another licence issued at Nagaland, evidence sought to be introduced was not appropriate. 3. The production of the document at the Appellate Court is not justified and I have reason to suspect it as has been obtained subsequent to the disposal of the case by the Tribunal. I refuse the plea for reception of additional evidence and dismiss the appeal filed by the owner and the driver. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 31, 2011 Pankaj*