C.R.No.2188 of 1993 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.06.2010 C.R.No.2188 of 1993 Bhajan Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Sukhdev Singh and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for respondent No.1. Mr. N.K.Khosla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. F.A.O.No.34 of 1994 Sukhdev Singh ...Appellant Versus Bhajan Singh and others ...Respondents Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. N.K.Khosla, Advocate, for respondent No.3. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of C.R. No.2188 of 1993 and F.A.O.No.34 of 1994 arising out of the Award dated 23.01.1933 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatinda. Vide the aforesaid Award, Sukhdev Singh-claimant was awarded compensation of Rs.9550/- on account of damage to the Light Transport Vehicle (Canter) owned by him against the owner and the driver of Bus bearing No.PUT-3451. The Insurance Company of the Bus was absolved of the liability, as the dirver was not found to be holding a valid Driving Licence. F.A.O.No.34 of 1994 is filed by the claimant for C.R.No.2188 of 1993 2 enhancement of amount of compensation, whereas C.R.No.2188 of 1993 has been filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle absolving the Insurance Company of the liability to pay the compensation amount. Mr. Jindal, learned counsel for the owner and the driver of the vehicle has relied upon an application for additional evidence filed before this Court relying upon the Driving Licence issued by the Licensing Authority, Dibrugarh and renewed by the office of District Transport Officer, Bhatinda to contend that, in fact, the driver was holding a valid Driving Licence on the date of accident. Thus, it is argued that the Insurance Company has been worngly absolved from the liability to pay the compensation amount. It may be noticed that the revision petition was admitted on 03.08.1993 and the request for stay for the payment of compensation amount was declined. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to state that the amount of compensation of Rs.9550/- has not been deposited by the owner of the vehicle so far. The fact remains that the Driving Licence relied upon by the petitioners by way of additional evidence was not produced before the learned trial Court. The Insurance Company has not filed any counter to the application for permission to lead additional evidence. The amount of compensation might have been paid by the claimant in the absence of stay granted by this Court. Thus, I do not find that the qeustion; whether the Insurance Company should be made liable for payment of compensation need to be decided in these proceedings. It shall be open to the petitioners to take recourse to the such remedy as may be available to the petitioners to recover the amount of compensation from the Insurance C.R.No.2188 of 1993 3 Company on proof of the fact that the driver of the Bus was holding a valid Driving Licence on the date of accident. Accordingly, C.R.No.2188 of 1993 stands disposed of. Coming to the appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, suffice it to state, that the appellant has not produced any evidence that the damage to the vehicle was to the extent of Rs.2,10,971.59 paise. From the evidence on record, the Insurance Company of the damaged vehicle has assessed the loss of Rs.9550/-. It is said compensation, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimant-appellant. In view of the said evidence, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the Award rendered by the learned Tribunal, which may warrant enhancement in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 29.06.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE