IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO 5277 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 11, 2008 SUKHJINDER SINGH ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SUNITA SHARMA ETC. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. RS Madan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant i.e. owner of the offending vehicle, has very aptly projected his case to the effect that Ashok Kumar (driver) was having a Driving Licence bearing No.17127 dated 16.6.1989. The Insurance Company was required to get it verified, however, wrong facts were given to the authorities in so much as the date of issuance of licence was given as 16.1.1989 instead of 16.6.1989. It is not that the Insurance Company did not know about the correct particulars because Annexure A-4 shows that in the heading of the application, the correct particulars of the licence had been given. Thus, on account of callous attitude, wrong particulars were given. Be that as it may, the licence has been duly verified and the documents in that regard are available on the record as Annexures A-2 and A-3 i.e. verification reports from the District Transport Officer, Amritsar. FAO 5277 of 2006 2 It stands verified that Driving Licence bearing No.17127 dated 16.6.1989 of Light Transport Vehicle and Heavy Transport Vehicle valid up to 11.6.2004, stands in the name of Ashok Kumar Sharma son of Durga Dass of Amritsar. Despite these facts being available on the record, under Issue No.4, in para-15 of the impugned award, the Driving Licence has been held to be fake in view of the report obtained by the Insurance company, as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has been confronted with these facts. The facts have not been disputed. The claim, however, has been resisted on the ground that the objections ought to have been raised before the Tribunal. Once, I have noticed that the driver held a valid driving licence as per the material available on record, it becomes the contractual duty of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. It is held that the Insurance Company will be liable to pay the compensation. March 11, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE