Civil Revision No.640 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.640 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision:27.01.2009 Rama Kant and another .............. Petitioners Vs. New India Assurance Co. & Ors. .............Respondents Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. I.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The revision is directed against the order dismissing the application to set aside an ex parte Award in a motor accident claim. As far as the original order, the Award had been passed against Insurance Company with a direction that the amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company with a right of recovery against the owners. 2. The Award was passed on 31.05.2002 and application for setting aside the Award was made on 08.10.2002, The application was filed stating that one of the petitioners was suffering from kidney ailment and the other petitioner who was a co-owner with him in respect to the vehicle was taking care of him. The averment made in the petition was that the relevant driving licence of the driver had been submitted to the counsel and they were informed that their presence was not necessary and if it was found necessary, the counsel would inform them. The petition was filed on a Civil Revision No.640 of 2006 (O&M) -2- further express statement that when the Award came to be passed, they realized that they were unrepresented and the direction that provided for a recovery by the Insurance Company constituted grave prejudice to them. 3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the petition entering a finding that the plea regarding forgery of the driving licence had been gone into detail and that the Insurance Company could not be made liable under such circumstances. The Tribunal, in fact, was not adverting to the reasons for the non-appearance of the petitioners but was trying to find its own reasons as to how impregnable the decision had been rendered and that there was nothing to assail in the Award passed. According to it, the Insurance Company could not be fastened with the liability in a case when there was no effective driving licence at the relevant time. In my view, it was still possible for owner to contend that he had made necessary enquiries at the time of employing the driver and if he found nothing amiss at the time of his initial engagement about the licence that was produced to him, the Insurance Company would be liable to indemnify the insured. The liability that may be fastened on the Insurance Company would depend upon the nature of evidence that could be adduced by the owner as regards the enquiry or otherwise about the genuineness of the driving licence of the driver engaged to drive the vehicle at the relevant time. 4. While expressing no opinion on the merits of the Award as regards the liability of the Insurance Company and its entitlement to recover after payment from the owners, I deem it appropriate to give an opportunity to contest the case on merits as regards the plea of the invalidity or otherwise of the driving licence of the driver who had been engaged at the time of the accident. The Award against the Insurance Company, if it had been satisfied already, will obtain its finality only after a fresh adjudication made after setting aside the Award that is already passed. The counsel for Civil Revision No.640 of 2006 (O&M) -3- the Insurance Company states that the Insurance Company has already paid the money in terms of the Award but it shall not be recoverable from the claimants and the adjudication which now takes place by virtue of this order will govern only the rights of parties inter se amongst the respondents. Subject to the above, the civil revision petition is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 27, 2009 Pankaj*