FAO No.363 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.363 of 1995 Date of Decision.23.12.2010 Smt. Geeta Devi widow of Onkar Parsad and others ......Appellants Versus Darshan Singh son of Gajjan Singh and others ......Respondents Present: None for the appellants. None for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Ms. Vandna Malhtora, Advocate for for respondent No.3. Mr. Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. N.K. Khosla, Advocate for respondent No.5. 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 at the instance of the claimants whose claims stood abated by 50% on a finding that the deceased who was a driver of the truck No.PCU-5145 had been guilty of contributory negligence. The accident arose when the truck, having registration No.PCU 5145 which was driven by the deceased was going long the Grand Trunk Road and yet another truck bearing registration No.PCI-4795 was coming from the opposite direction. The evidence had been given by the person sitting by the side of the driver Jagtar Singh, who stated that when the vehicle was going in the area of village Basantpura near FAO No.363 of 1995 -2- Baba Petrol Pump, the vehicle No.PCI-4795 coming in the opposite direction was being driven rashly and negligent and he had instructed the deceased driver Om Parkash to take his truck to the extreme left side of the road after crossing the bridge. The accident was alleged by him to have been caused immediately after they crossed the bridge when the driver of the bus Darshan Singh brought his truck on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the truck. After striking against the truck, the offending vehicle struck against the parapet of the bridge and then came to a halt. The Tribunal held that GT Road was a broad one and unless there had been negligence on part of both the vehicles, there could not have been an accident. This reasoning is a little suspect, for in this case the two most competent persons to speak about the accident were the persons, who were eye witnesses to the accident. The cleaner of the truck in which the deceased was travelling had given evidence that truck PCU-5145 has crossed over the bridge and by that time the respondent's truck PCI-4795 dashed against the truck and stopped at parapet of the bridge. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurance company would contend that the accident had taken place on a broad road and not anywhere near the bridge. If there had been such an evidence by the driver of the truck, I would go with the contention but if the driver would avoid the witness stand, I cannot allow the evidence of PW2 to be displaced by conjectures. I would, therefore, hold the driver of the truck No.PCI- 4795 to be wholly responsible for the accident. I will not make any modification with reference to the quantum of compensation already determined but I will vacate the finding relating to the abatement of FAO No.363 of 1995 -3- the claim to the extent of Rs.50%. The award of the Tribunal would be paid in full for what was determined by the Tribunal, which means it shall be in excess of another Rs.1,60,000/- which the claimants will be entitled to recover against the insurer of the truck No.PCI-4795 with interest @6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The distribution of the amount shall be in the manner determined by the Tribunal. 2. Learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the Tribunal had found that the driving licence was fake but still held that since the licence had been renewed subsequently, it must be taken as genuine. The effect of valid renewal of a fake licence has been the subject of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Davinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 698 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that genuine renewal of even a fake licence will be taken as fake. The finding ought to have been, therefore, to make the insurer liable to satisfy the claimants but ought to have been provided the right of recovery against the owner of the truck PCI-4795. Even while allowing the appeal of the claimants and giving to the claimants a right of enforcement of the award against the insurance company, the insurance company shall have a right of recovery against the owner of the truck PCI-4795. 3. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 23, 2010 Pankaj*