IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.370 of 2011 Date of decision : October 11, 2011 Krishan Lal …Petitioner. Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner and respondent No.1 Oriental Insurance Company are respondents in a motor accident claim case, instituted by respondents No.3 to 6, seeking compensation, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Oriental Insurance Company, impleaded as Insurer, has raised an objection that the driver of the vehicle, namely respondent Dinesh Kumar, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. Present petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, which allegedly caused the accident. His plea is that the driver possessed a valid driving licence. 2. Licence purports to have been issued by Licencing Authority of Mathura. Mathura being located at a distance of more than 500 kms, Oriental Insurance Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Company moved an application, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, for appointment of Local Commissioner, for recording evidence of the concerned official of the Licencing Authority. That application has been allowed and the expenses of the commission have been ordered to be paid by the Insurance Company. However, petitioner’s prayer for payment of travelling and other expenses of his counsel, for going to Mathura to cross-examine the witness, from the said Licencing Authority at Mathura, has been declined. Petitioner is aggrieved by this part of the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The order is dated 6th September, 2011, copy Annexure P-7. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Petitioner is insured in the case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. There is an agreement for indemnification, between the petitioner and the Oriental Insurance Company, and as per that agreement Insurance Company would be indemnifying the petitioner in case he is ordered to pay compensation to the third party. Agreement is subject to certain exceptions and one of the exceptions is that in case vehicle is driven by a person not licenced to drive the same, Insurance Company will not be liable to indemnify the petitioner. Now, if ultimately the petitioner is held to be entitled to indemnification or in other words, the Insurance Company …3… is ordered to pay the compensation to the claimants, in that event the petitioner should be entitled even to the costs of litigation, which will include the expenses incurred on examining witness of Insurance Company, on commission, at Mathura. Hence, the petition is disposed of with the order that if ultimately Insurance Company is held liable to pay the compensation, under the agreement of indemnification between the petitioner and the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company shall bear the expenses incurred by the petitioner on his counsel for travelling to Mathura as also counsel fee and also his own travelling expenses, and such expenses shall be determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at the time of final decision of the case. Pending application also stands disposed of. October 11, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J