CM No.27347-CII of 2011 in FAO No.4516 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.27347-CII of 2011 in FAO No.4516 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.1.2012 Ravinder Kumar Midha ....Appellant Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Sanjiv Patiyal, Advocate for Mr.Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the applicant/appellant Mr.V.Chaudhri, Advocate for respondent No.1- Insurance Company ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) CM No.27347 CII of 2011 The present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed for recalling the order dated 25.8.2011, vide which the present appeal alongwith the applications for stay and for condonation of delay were dismissed. In the said application, on 21.11.2011, notice of motion was issued and at the asking of the Court, Mr.V.Chaudhri, Advocate accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.1-Insurance Company and sought time to CM No.27347-CII of 2011 in FAO No.4516 of 2011 (O&M) 2 verify the veracity of driving licence Annexure A-1. Learned counsel for respondent No.1- Insurance Company has produced the verification report, issued by the Registering and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh, dated 30.11.2011, wherein it has been mentioned that the driving licence Annexure A-1 is issued in the name of Amar Singh, who was the driver of the offending vehicle and the same was valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. In view of the above, the order dated 25.8.2011 is recalled. CM No.16684-CII of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 74 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of. CM No.16686-CII of 2011 Keeping in view the averments made in the application and in view of the order passed in the aforementioned application i.e. CM No.27347-CII of 2011, the present application is allowed. The applicant- appellant is permitted to lead additional evidence i.e driving licence Annexure A-2, which is wrongly mentioned as Annexure A-3. FAO No.4516 of 2011 The only point involved in this appeal is to determine as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant failed to produce the driving licence of the driver. He has further CM No.27347-CII of 2011 in FAO No.4516 of 2011 (O&M) 3 contended that respondent No.2, Amar, the driver, died during the pendency of the claim petition and he was proceeded against ex-parte. He has further contended that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident but due to some unavoidable circumstances, he could not produce the same during trial. The appellant has placed on record Annexure A-2, the driving licence issued to the Driver (now deceased) by the Registering and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh, by way of additional evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1- Insurance Company has conceded this fact and stated that earlier he could not verify the driving licence. The authenticity of the driving licence is established in view of the verification report dated 30.11.2011, issued by the Registering and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that the driving licence No.367523 dated 27.5.1999, was issued in the name of Amar son of Kalia (the driver of the offending vehicle), and the same is valid upto 26.5.2019. The verification report is taken on record as Mark 'A'. In view of the undisputed position, the findings of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.3 are reversed and it is held that the driver was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Accordingly, the findings on issue No.2 is modified to the extent that the United India Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant, Ex.R.1 being the package policy. No other point has been raised. CM No.27347-CII of 2011 in FAO No.4516 of 2011 (O&M) 4 In view of the report Mark 'A', dated 30.11.2011, the owner is exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation amount to the injured- claimant and the burden is shifted to respondent No.1 -Insurance Company. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned Award is modified in the manner indicated above. 5.01.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE