F.A.O.NO. 1284 OF 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1284 OF 2000 Date of decision:26 August, 2010 United India Insurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Harpal Singh and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. There is no representation for the respondents at the time when the matter is called. There is an application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of additional evidence. The additional evidence pertains to a report of the Licencing Authority, Chandigarh to the effect that the Driving Licence itself had been applied and taken only in May 1998, where the accident had taken place in April 1998. The grievance of the appellant is that an application was filed for grant of amount on “no fault” liability F.A.O.NO. 1284 OF 2000 2 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and on the same day the Tribunal also passed an order, closing the case under Section 166 of the Act. The Insurance Company had taken up a plea that the driver did not have a valid driving licence but it did not put the case for trial to settle the disputes amongst respondents inter se. 2. I am of the view that the Tribunal ought not to have closed the case and it was immaterial that the claimants reported satisfaction of their claim. It ought to have adjudicated the inter se disputes between the respondents. The copy of the report filed along with the application suggests prima facie that the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It is material and I therefore, would refer to be remanded to the Tribunal for an opportunity to adduce evidence on the same. The award of the Tribunal in so far as it cast the liability on the insurer without providing for a right of recovery is set aside and the matter shall go back to the Tribunal at Patiala for consideration of disputes amongst the respondents in the claim petition only. The claimants are not even required to be served with notice of hearing. The case shall not be reopened for any other purpose except for the purpose of examining whether the insurer has a right of recovery for the amount paid under the award or not. 3. The order of the award of the Tribunal is partly set aside and the appeal is allowed and remitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall dispose of the respective contentions inter se F.A.O.NO. 1284 OF 2000 3 between the owner and the driver on the one hand and the insurer on the other hand. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 24.09.2010. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 26th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik