IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 125 of 1996 Date of decision: March 08, 2010 Oriental Insurance Company .. Appellant Vs. Anil Kumar and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Ms. Meenu Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J The petitioner-respondent No.1 Anil Kumar preferred a claim petition on account of the the injuries suffered by him, against Dharminder Singh driver and Vinod Singh owner of the Jeep No.UP15B-8907 as well as its insurer i.e. Oriental Insurance Company-appellant (herein referred as 'the appellant'). It is pertinent to mention here that the appeal qua the claimant- respondent No.1 has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.1.1996. The claim petition was contested by the respondents and ultimately the Tribunal vide award dated 13.10.1995 awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.41,000/- in favour of the claimant-respondent (herein referred as 'the claimant') and against the respondents along with interest @ 12% per annum. Now the Oriental Insurance Company appellant has come up in appeal. The main grouse of the appellant is regarding driving licence held by the respondent No.2. According to it, the licence issued by the Licensing Authority, Muradabad on 1.1.1988 and renewed on 31.12.1991 is fake. Since the Tribunal also found the same to be fake, therefore, company could not be held liable. Arguments heard. The record reveals that the driving licence Ex.R1 was issued by the Licensing Authority, Muradabad on 1.1.1988 and Parkash Nath F.A.O. No. 125 of 1996 -2- Sirivastava Clerk from the office of R.T.O. Muradabad has stated from the record that the said licence was not issued on the said date, but hehas not denied the signatures of the Licensing Authority, Muradabad on the licence Ex.R-1. If no entry with regard to issuance of driving licence has been made in the record, then the fault does not lie with the respondent-driver Dharminder Singh. The driving licence Ex.R1 further shows that even after 31.12.1991, it was renewed by the same Licensing Authority from 31.12.1991 to 30.12.1994, therefore, it would not be unsafe to hold that the respondent Dharminder Singh was not holding a valid driving licence. Had this licence been forged one then the said Licensing Authority, who had issued the licence, would not have renewed the same. As such, the bonafides of the owner in believing that Dharaminder Singh was having a valid driving licence at the time of accident cannot be doubted. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. March 08, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge