FAO No. 5318 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5318 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.3.2010 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited .......... Appellant Versus Smt. Menka & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 5822-CII of 2010 C.M. is allowed, Surveyor report dated 18.12.2007, is taken on record. FAO No. 5318 of 2008 This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 13.5.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, vide which petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, moved by the claimant / respondents, was allowed. The claimants claimed compensation on account of death of Narender Singh in a motor vehicular accident. The claim petition was contested by the Driver, owner as well as by the Insurance company. The insurance company disputed its liability FAO No. 5318 of 2008 2 on the plea, that respondent No.1 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence on the date of accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed issue No.2, which reads as under :- “2. Whether respondent No.1 did not hold a valid driving licence?OPR-4 The learned Tribunal on issue No.2, was pleased to hold, that as respondent No.1, had failed to produce his driving licence, therefore, the presumption was required to be drawn against the driver by holding that the driver of the offending vehicle, did not have any valid driving licence. This contention of the appellant, was not accepted by the learned tribunal as the onus to prove this issue was on the Insurance company. The learned Tribunal held that as the Insurance company, failed to lead any evidence in support of issue No.2, therefore, issue No.2 was decided against the Insurance company. The Insurance Company was held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. In order to prove that respondent No.1 i.e. the Driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence, this Court permitted the Insurance Company to get the driving licence verified and file the report in this regard. C.M. has been moved for placing on record, the report of the Surveyor regarding verification of the driving licence. As per the report, it is revealed that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and genuine driving licence to drive the LMV vehicle. The licence is held valid . However, the Surveyor failed to report, as to whether the licence was FAO No. 5318 of 2008 3 renewed after the date of expiry or not, and the report has only been submitted to the effect, that the licence held by the driver was genuine. In view of the report of the Surveyor, which is taken on record vide C.M. No. 5822-CII of 2010, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No.2. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is otherwise barred by limitation, as it has been filed with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 130 days in filing the appeal. The reason given for condonation of delay of 130 days, reads as under :- “3. That the Branch Office under whose jurisdiction the present case falls is at Chandigarh, whereas the present case was tried before the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur. The head Office from where the instructions for filing the appeal are to be obtained is at Mumbai. The delay in filing the appeal occurred on account of coordination between different offices located at far of places in India. Further, the demand draft is to be prepared upon the instructions issued by the Mumbai Office which in turn is sent to the Chandigarh Office by post. The delay in filing the appeal is, thus, bona fide and unintendend.” The averments made in the application, even if are taken on their face value, do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 130 days when advanced technology of communication i.e. mobile FAO No. 5318 of 2008 4 phones, fax etc., are available and anyone can be contacted in the world within seconds. Consequently, this application is dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed on merit as well as being time barred. 25.3.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE