FAO No. 1405 of 1995 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 31.3.2010 1. FAO No. 1405 of 1995 (O&M) Makhan Singh (deceased) through LRs ... Appellant vs Kaushalaya Rani and others .... Respondents 2. FAO No. 1406 of 1995 (O&M) Makhan Singh (deceased) through LRs ... Appellant vs Balwinder Kaur and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals as the same arise out of one accident. These appeals have been filed by the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident impugning the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) whereby the liability of claim was put on him as well as the driver on account of the fact that the driving licence held by the driver was found to be fake. Briefly the facts are that on 15.12.1991, Paramjit Singh alias Shera and Ranjit Singh of Village Currey, were going to Mullanpur on Moped No. PIL-6901. Ranjit Singh was driving the moped and Paramjit Singh was its pillion rider. When they reached near Mod Karima, truck bearing No. PAT-374 came from Jagraon side at a very fast speed and struck against the moped. Both Paramjit Singh and Ranjit Singh fell down on the road and received injuries. Due to the impact of accident, both succumbed to their injuries. Thereafter, the claimants filed petitions before the learned Tribunal which were allowed. While considering the age of both the deceased as 35 years at the time of accident, the learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 19.12.1994 awarded Rs. 2 lacs as compensation in each case FAO No. 1405 of 1995 -2- to the claimants of deceased Paramjit Singh alias Shera and deceased Ranjit Singh. The insurance company was absolved from indemnifying the owner of the vehicle as the offending vehicle was being driven by a person holding a fake driving licence. It is this award which is impugned in both the appeals by the owner of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that owner of the vehicle is not presumed to have the knowledge that the driving licence held by a person to whom he is going to engage as driver, is fake or genuine which if apparently on the face of it looks to be genuine. In these circumstances, the owner cannot be made liable to pay compensation as the owner had not deliberately engaged a person who was not having a valid driving license. He further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants of deceased Paramjit Singh alias Shera is also on higher side considering the age of the deceased. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the paper-book, I do not find merit in the submissions made. Clear finding has been recorded in para 12 of the impugned award in the present appeal holding therein that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. It was claimed by the driver that the driving licence held by him had been issued by the Licensing Authority, Hamirpur. However, Ramesh Chander, Development Clerk in the office of S. D. O. (Civil), Hamirpur, who appeared as a witness stated that the driving licence, Ex. R.1, had not been either issued by the Licensing Authority, Hamirpur nor it has been renewed there. There is no entry regarding the licence in their record. Once it has been found on the basis of evidence produced on record that the driving licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle was not genuine, the insurance company cannot be burdened with the liability to satisfy the award. Even the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the owner of the vehicle was not negligent has no legs to stand considering the fact that he did not even appear in the witness box to put his stand before the Tribunal. As far as the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants of deceased Paramjit Singh alias Shera is concerned, considering the fact that deceased Paramjit Singh alias Shera, who was the sold bread earner of the family, had left behind, his old parents, widow and three minor children, FAO No. 1405 of 1995 -3- the compensation of Rs. 2 lacs cannot be said on higher side, which is in consonance with the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned above, the present appeals are dismissed. 31.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge