1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5009 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 8.8.2011 *** Pardeep .. Appellant Vs. Alam & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate for the the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. CM No. 18967-CII of 2011 The application is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and the delay of 81 days in filing the instant appeal stands condoned. FAO No. 5009 of 2011 The appellant is laying challenge to the award dated 14.2.2011 passed in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by virtue of which respondent No.1 has been held entitled to receive Rs. 58,683/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The liability to pay the compensation amount has been put on the appellant being the owner and driver of the offending vehicle i.e. tractor bearing registration No. HR30D-6217, since it was found driven by the appellant in violation of insurance policy. However, insurance company had been asked to first satisfy the award and then to recover the same from the appellant. Dis-satisfied with the same, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the award on two counts, firstly, the tractor in question has not been connected with the alleged accident and it has not been proved that the appellant was driving the said tractor at the relevant time and secondly, the liability to satisfy the 2 award has wrongly been put on him as he was holding a valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident. The arguments have been scanned. It is apparent from the perusal of the impugned award that on the strength of testimonies of injured Alam, coupled with that of eye-witness Akbar, who specifically deposed that the appellant was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Admittedly, case FIR No.207 dated 9.5.2008 was registered against the appellant under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. Taking into account these facts, the learned Tribunal while relying upon the case of Girdhari Lal Vs. Radhey Sham & Ors. 1993(2) PLR 109(P&H), draw the presumption of having caused the accident due to his negligence, by the appellant. It is settled that the cases of such types are decided on the preponderance of probabilities. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. Therefore, no fault could be found with the impugned award, so far as the appellant having held to be driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Coming to the next contention, it is evident from the records that the driving licence Ex.R1 was proved to be granted for driving of motor-cycle and motor-car only and not the tractor, which he was found to have been driving at the time of accident. In this view of the matter, finding the violation of terms of insurance policy, the learned Tribunal rightly foisted the liability to satisfy the award upon the appellant. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned award. The appeal, being devoid of any merits, is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 08, 2011 Jiten