IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO.No. 381 of 2007.. Judgment reserved on 4.7.2011. Date of Decision: 11.7.2011. ______________________________________________ Amrit Lal ….Appellant. Versus. Ishwari Devi and another. . ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. No. For the appellants :Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent-1. : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For respondent-2. :Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioner has been held liable to compensate Smt. Ishwari Devi for the accident caused by him on 26.2.2001.The facts as pleaded before the learned Tribunal were that on 26.2.2001, the claimant-Ishwari Devi had gone out of her house to urinate when the scooter being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner, struck against her injuring her. She suffered injuries in the femur bone and consequently was hospitalized where she was treated. On the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,36,150/- as compensation for the injuries caused and Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment.yes. 2 medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the petition including interest at the rate of 9.5% from the date of filing of the petition until its final realization. 2. The petitioner is now in appeal. A number of grounds have been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The first ground urged is that the accident in question has not been proved and that the claimant who was 75 years of age and unable to walk was weak and fell down and it was urged that the entire story has been concocted. 3. It is urged that the evidence on record has been mis- read. The learned tribunal, held that the evidence of PW4 Ishwari Devi has been corroborated in material particulars by PW6- Kashmir Singh, who stated that he was standing in front of the society building which is at a distance of about 10-15 yards from the place where the accident took place. He states that the petitioner was standing on the un-mettled portion of the road when a scooter came at a high speed and dashed into her. He says that the scooter was owned by respondent-Amrit Lal. Coupled with the medical evidence, the claim was allowed. 4. I do not find any evidence on the record to suggest body infirmity/weakness. The medical evidence as also the evidence of injured and PW6-Kashmir Singh leave no doubt in my mind that the accident took place as pleaded. 5. The basic point urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal was not correct in holding that the appellant did not have a valid driving license. He has referred to the evidence of the respondents as also the provisions of 3 the Motor Vehicles Act that the appellant was holding a valid driving license. 6. Adverting to the license proved on the record Ext. RW1/1, learned counsel submits that it was issued on 19.4.1986 and its validity was for a period of twenty years. 7. To test this submission, the evidence of RW1 Bal Krishan Thakur, Senior Clerk in the office of Motor Licensing Authority, Solan may be considered. He states that the license (Ext. RW1/1) was issued from the office of Licensing Authority, Solan authorizing the appellant to drive motor cycle/scooter. It was valid up to 18.4.1989. He had not brought the duplicate license register. In cross-examination he says that he had only brought that record which was summoned. From the register, he could not say whether a duplicate license was issued in favour of the appellant in the absence of any record. 8. RW2 Sh. Sachin Walia, Motor Licensing Clerk in the office of Licensing Authority, Dharamshala, states that he has no record with him as it was taken by the police. He says that he was summoned without giving the details of the record which was required. This statement was recorded on 3.8.2005. On 8.5.2006, he was re-examined and the only thing stated by him is that licensing fee has been deposited with the Licensing Authority. This is the entire evidence. 9. The appellant when appeared as RW3 admits: “ License mairaa 1986 maay Solan maay bana tha. Solan maay hee duplicate license leeya. Yah theek hay kee license 18.4.1989 kay baad mera license kabhi renewed na huaa . Theek hay kee mera duplicate 4 license key uper renewal kee endorsement 18.4.1989 say laker aaj tak na hay. Galat hay kee mainey 1989 key baad license ko kabhi renew na karwaya aur ishi karan koi endorsement marey license pur na hay. Yaha galat hay ki 26.2.2001 ko marey pass koi valid driving license na thaa. Galat hay ki Insurance Policy key terms and conditions ko violate kiya hay. Galat hay ki agar compensation parey tho uskay leeay maay liable hoo. Galat hay ki mainey driving license kee renewal kay baray jhootha bayan diya hay.” 10. This part of the cross-examination is important. He admits that the license was renewed, it was valid only up to 18.4.1989 and that the duplicate license was got issued from Licensing Authority, Solan. The last two aspects have not been proved. 11. Learned counsel refers to Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act to urge that since the petitioner on the date of renewal was aged about 50 years, its validity would be governed by Section 14 (B) which reads: “14 Currency of licenses to drive motor vehicles- (1)…………………………………. (2)………………………………… (a)………………………………… (b) in the case of any other licence:-- (i) If the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of (fifty years) on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof,- (A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal; or (B) until the date on which such person attains the age of (fifty years). (ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause(i), has attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective, on payment of such fee as may 5 be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal.” 12. The submission made by the learned counsel is that since on the date when the statement of appellant-Amrit Lal was recorded on 8.5.2006, his age on that date is shown as 53 years meaning thereby his age on the date of the accident would be 48 years and the license would be valid in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (supra). 13. I cannot accept this submission. The age of the appellant has not been established on the record. It is merely the age as stated when he has stepped into the witness box. The appellant has also submitted that the duplicate license was issued to him from Motor Licensing Authority, Solan. Why this fact has not proved on the record, is not clear. It was for the appellant to lead cogent evidence from the record to establish this fact. There is nothing to suggest that this record is not available. In fact, if the entire case is considered what I find is that both the witnesses summoned to prove the record have been examined without that record which was vital and forms the very basis/foundation of the record. I also find that the admission of the appellant is clear that the license was valid up to 18.4.1989, one of the witnesses examination was deferred for the a period of nine months without any efforts having been made to summon the record. 14. Under Clause (i)(b), the age of 50 years for the validity of the license was introduced by an amendment in the year 1994 and prior to that the age of 40 years. What I find is that the petitioner herein has not proved his age in accordance with law. In any event, the license has been proved to be valid only up to the year 1989. In 6 case the petitioner was aggrieved by the grant of license for a short of period, it was for him to have initiated the proceedings under the Act for necessary rectification etc. There is thus no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. July 11, 2011(R)