FAO No.103 of 2008(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.103 of 2008(O&M) Decided on : December 01, 2009 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ... Appellant VERSUS Ritu Sondhi and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Paul S.Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.6. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This appeal preferred by New India Assurance Company Limited (herein referred as `the appellant') assails the judgment dated 19.10.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (herein referred as `the Tribunal'), whereby, the appellant Company has been held liable to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,30,000/- to the claimants – respondents No.1 to 4 (herein referred as `the claimants'). The appellant has contended that there was breach of conditions of insurance on account of the fact that Balwinder Kumar, driver of the offending truck was not holding a valid driving licence, as such, the Tribunal should not have decided issue No.2 (regarding validity of licence) FAO No.103 of 2008(O&M) [ 2 ] against the appellant and it also fell in error while holding that the appellant has failed to discharge its onus. Factual background of the case is that claimants preferred a claim petition on account of the death of Tilak Raj Sondhi in a motor vehicle accident. The claim petition was contested by the appellant and respondents No.5 to 7. From the pleadings of the parties, in all five issues were framed, out of which Issue No.2 is reproduced as under:- “2. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-4.” All the issues were decided in favour of the claimants and Issues No.2 and 4 were decided against the appellant – Insurance company. Balwinder Kumar – respondent No.5 was holding a licence for driving Light Motor Vehicles/Heavy Motor Vehicles at the time of the accident. It is not disputed that the said driving licence, allegedly issued on 13.7.2005, was renewed validly upto 12.7.2008 and, thereby valid. The main attack of the appellant is that though the renewal was valid, but the original licence bearing No.3999 Dup, dated 13.7.2005 (Ex.R1) was not issued by the District Transport Officer, Hoshiarpur (competent authority to issue licence). Heard. Gopal Krishan (RW1) was examined by the appellant to prove that the licence was not genuine. The said licence was issued to Balwinder Kumar against entry No.8137-R, but he did not bring the relevant entries i.e, entries from 8131 to 8146 and stated that these entries were missing from the Register. He also stated that there is no record with regard to FAO No.103 of 2008(O&M) [ 3 ] missing of these pages. The appellant proved form bearing entry No.8137 to prove that it relates to Ramesh Kumar, but he admitted that the form which pertained to Ramesh Kumar son of Malkiat Singh bears entry No.8137 and not entry No.8137R. He further stated that he did not bring the record pertaining to the licence (Ex.R1) relating to Balwinder Kumar – respondent No.5. Though, the witness (RW1) has stated that the old number of the licence was 8137/R/94-95 and it was issued in the name of Ramesh Kumar son of Malkiat Singh, however, during cross-examination, he admitted that the driving licence of Ramesh Kumar was bearing only No.8137 and not 8137R, meaning thereby that the official witness (RW1) has not proved the record pertaining to DL No.8137/R, so as to prove the in-genuineness of the driving licence in question (Ex.R1). As such, the appellant - Insurance Company could not discharge the onus, which lay heavily upon it. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in deciding this issue against the appellant – Insurance Company. No other point was urged. No merit. Dismissed. December 01, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE