FAO No.4353 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4353 of 2011 Date of decision:8.7.2011 Rishipal ...Appellant Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.S.R.Hooda, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- JITENDRA CHUAHAN, J. CM No.16172-CII of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 405 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main case The question involved in the present appeal is that whether the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the awarded compensation or not. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. From the perusal of case file, it emerges that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, (driver of the offending vehicle) which is evident from the statement of injured witness, Bimla Devi, PW1. Two distinct driving licences, Exhibits R/1 and R/3 were produced on record to prove that the respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving licence. The learned Tribunal, while FAO No.4353 of 2011 2 relying upon the testimonies of official witnesses Gulshan Kumar, RW1 and Om Dutt, RW2, held that the driving licence, Exhibit R1 and R3 are fake. In the circumstances, when it is established that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, respondent No.3 is not liable for payment of any compensation to the claimants. It is admitted fact that offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3, and therefore, insurance company satisfied the decree at the first instance and now, the respondent No.3 shall have the recovery rights from the owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle. In view of above, I find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 8.7.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE