F.A.O.NO. 753 OF 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 753 OF 2009 Date of decision:22nd November, 2010 M/s New Himalaya Transport Co. Private Ltd. Batala(Sahni Bus Service) Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur through its Managing Director. .......Appellant Versus Rattan Lal and another ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant. None for respondent No. 1. Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate, for the Insurance Company/respondent No. 2. 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 by the owner against whom the award had been passed, exonerating the Insurance Company. 2. At the stage of appeal, application had been filed by the owner for reception of additional evidence of copy of the driving licence that purported to show renewal by the DTO Amritsar. 3. This Court vide order dated 27.07.2010, offered to parties an opportunity to let in oral evidence, particularly in view of the fact F.A.O.NO. 753 OF 2009 2 that the insurer was relying on an endorsement in a letter addressed by the Bhangu Secret And Detective Agency that the original licence had not been issued by the DTO Amritsar and on being summoned at the instance of the appellant, the clerk DTO office, Amritsar was examined as RW-1, who spoke with reference to the records that there had been a bomb blast at the office, at Amritsar and all the records of the year 1992 had been lost. The copy of the FIR was Exhibited as RW-1/1. A renewal register had been produced and a duly certified copy was produced as RW-1/2 that showed that a renewal had been issued in the name of one Purshotam Lal. The Insurance Company elicited in the cross examination that he did not know on what basis the renewal register had referred to the fact that the original licence had been issued in the name of the driver. The witness denied a suggestion put to him that DTO had made any endorsement in the letter addressed by Bhangu Secret And Detective Agency. 4. On consideration of the case, I find that there is adequate proof of the fact that there was a bomb blast and original records had been lost in the place. If that explains the non production of the register containing the issue of licence in favour of Purshotam Lal, a renewal of a driving licence is admittedly in favour of the driver. If the original register cannot be produced and only renewal of the alleged licence is produced then I would hold that a renewal which is affected was done in the manner conforming to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 15 of the F.A.O.NO. 753 OF 2009 3 Act empowers “the Licencing Authority to renew the original driving licence on an application filed by the licencee not later than 30 days from the date of its expiry”. I would take the renewal to have been made in accordance with law by invoking the statutory presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that official acts are lawfully preformed, unless shown to the contrary. I have no reason to suspect that renewal was a fabrication especially when the renewal is produced before the Court and a witness has spoken with reference to the same. 5. I would therefore, hold that driver had a valid driving licence at the relevant time of the accident and the owner is entitled to a full protection of indemnity by the insurer. 6. The finding relating to validity of the driving licence as recorded by the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is allowed, finding the insured to be entitled to indemnity. If any amount deposited by the insured has already been withdrawn by the claimants, the insured will be entitled to recover the same against the insurer as a measure of indemnity. The right of recovery for the insured will therefore, be only against the insurer. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 22nd November, 2010 Shivani Kaushik