FAO No.3858 of 2003(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.3858 of 2003 Decided on : October 08, 2009 Smt.Neelam Batra ... Appellant VERSUS Sanjay and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: None for the appellant. Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Appellant - Neelam Batra, owner of the offending truck bearing Reg.No.HR-38-9561 (herein referred as `the appellant') has challenged the award dated 7.2.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, awarding compensation to the claimants – respondents No.3 to 5. The grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal while wrongly holding that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e, respondent No.1 – Sanjay was not holding a valid driving licence, gave liberty to the respondent – Insurance Company to recover the award amount from the appellant. On 24.9.2000, the truck bearing Reg.No.HR-55-8377 was FAO No.3858 of 2003(O&M) [ 2 ] going from Delhi to Nasik. At about 8.00 AM, when it reached near UP border, all of sudden, the offending truck, which was going ahead of the aforesaid truck, applied brakes. Resultantly, the iron rods loaded in the offending truck, protruded out of its body and pierced in the front portion of the truck No.HR-55-8377. Consequently, the driver Kanwaljit Singh and co-driver Satnam Singh of the said vehicle (HR-55-8377) suffered injuries. They were removed to the hospital, where Kanwaljit Singh succumbed to the injuries. The matter was reported to the police and the FIR No.368 dated 24.9.2000 was registered. As an aftermath of the accident, the claimants preferred claim petitions, which was opposed by the appellant and the respondent Insurance Company. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 ? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 4. Relief.” Vide the impugned award, the claim petitions were accepted and it was observed that since respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, liberty was granted to the Insurer (respondent Insurance Company) to recover the award amount from FAO No.3858 of 2003(O&M) [ 3 ] the Insured (appellant), which finding is challenged by the appellant. Heard, record perused. In the case in hand, there are two driving licenses on record; one produced by respondent No.1 at the time of accident before the police, which is on record as Ex.P2; and the other produced by respondent No.1 during the pendency of the claim petition as Ex.R1. It is a settled law that the Insurance Company is not liable under the policy in respect of any liability occurred, whilst the insured vehicle is being driven by a person, who is not holding an effective driving licence `at the time of the accident.' The words `at the time of accident' are significant, having a simple meaning that the driving licence, if any, found in possession of the driver at the time of the accident, the genuineness of which is to be determined. In the present case, respondent No.1 was arrested in the criminal case. Driving licence Ex.P2 was recovered from him. In the circumstances, the Insurance Company as also the Tribunal were concerned with the validity and genuineness of the said driving licence (Ex.P2). If respondent No.1 had some other driving licence, then its genuineness was of no relevance with the case, wherein, at the time of accident, the licence (Ex.P2) had already been produced on record. In this regard, Section 6(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is relevant, which reads as under:- “6. Restrictions on the holding of driving licenses.- (1) No person shall, while he holds any driving licence for the time being in force, hold any other driving licence except a learner's licence or a driving licence issued in accordance with the FAO No.3858 of 2003(O&M) [ 4 ] provisions of Section 18 or a document authorising, in accordance with the rules made under Section 139, the person specified therein to drive a motor vehicle.” The language of the aforesaid Section is clear that a person can have only one driving licence at one point of time. If any addition is to be made, the same has to be endorsed in the same driving licence. A person, therefore, cannot hold two separate driving licenses for light vehicles and heavy vehicles. Why a person would have two driving licenses. The reason is obvious – to hood-wink the law enforcement agencies. A particular driving licence is to be used in a particular set of circumstances as per convenience of the user. In criminal proceedings forged driving licence is handed over to the police, but in proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act, to avoid civil liability, genuine driving licence which is perhaps obtained for that very purpose is tendered. Pattern is too mischievous; the objective is to deceive the Insurance Companies. Should the Tribunal or the Court become a party to such a fraud by simply ignoring the forgery and hold that at least one driving licence was genuine? The answer must be `no'. It was never the intention of the Legislature framing the law. While granting compensation, the Tribunal has to uphold the majesty of the law. Anybody found to be tinkering with it has to be dealt with a strong hand. No quarters are to be given up. The Tribunal has to be sensitive to the needs of the victims of road accident, but, at the same time, malpractices should not be tolerated. The fact remains FAO No.3858 of 2003(O&M) [ 5 ] that the driving licence which respondent No.1 was holding at the time of the fateful accident is a forged document. Merely because, his employer (the appellant) later on came up with another driving licence in his name, does not mean that at the time of the accident, respondent No.1 was holding an effective driving licence. A thorn is a thorn and it does not become a rose, merely because it is attached to it. In the circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident is upheld and, thus, no interference is warranted in the order granting liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the award amount from the appellant. Appeal dismissed. October 08, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE