In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 4349 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: September 11, 2009 Ajit Singh .. Appellant Vs. Vikas Sharma and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate with Mr. Vishal Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.3. A.N. Jindal, J Ajit Singh, owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.PB-10AM8884, has challenged the award dated 28.3.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.55,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimants-respondent No.1 (herein referred as 'the respondent No.1') and against the appellant and the respondents No.2 and 3. However, the respondent No.3-Insurance Company was given right to recover the amount with interest from the appellant and the respondent No.2, for the reasons that the respondent No.2 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The appellant has not challenged the negligence of the respondent No.2 and the Insurance Company has also not challenged the liability of the appellant and respondent No.3, but has challenged the award on the ground that since he never knew that the licence was fake at the time of accident, therefore, it was only insurance company who could be held liable to make payment. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal had framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the claimant Vikas Sharma received injuries in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the tractor No.PB-10AM-8884 by Kuldip Singh respondent No.2?OPP F.A.O. No. 4349 of 2007 -2- *** 2. Whether Kuldip Singh respondent No.2 driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident? If so, its effect?OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is bad for non joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. If so, its effect?OPR 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents. If so, how much and from whom?OPA 5. Relief. Since the findings on the issue No.2 have been challenged by the appellants, therefore, the same need to be pondered over. In order to shift the onus, the Insurance Company tendered into evidence the documents Ex.R-1 and R-2 i.e. certified copy of the charge sheet prepared by the police against the respondent No.2 and certified copy of the statement of the Investigating Officer in which he had stated that the respondent No.2 had not produced the driving licence at the time of his arrest. The appellant also examined himself as PW-1 and furnished the affidavit Ex.PW1/A, in which he disclosed that he is owner of tractor bearing registration No.PB-10AM-8884 and he had employed Kuldeep Singh as driver on the above said tractor. He was trained and had enough experience of driving. He had left his employment in the month of January, 2004. During cross examination he has stated that he did not produce the said driving licence before the police. He did not obtain the photocopy of the driving licence at the time of his appointment. He did not try to get it verified from the concerned authorities. The onus to prove this issue lay heavily on the appellant as he was acquainted with the facts relating to the driving licence. He had employed the driving after examining the driving licence. Had he examined the alleged licence having been issued by the Licencing Authority, Ludhiana. The appellant also being the resident of Ludhiana would in the ordinary course of event have checked from the licencing authority if the same was issued by it. Similarly, he also did not even keep the copy of the driving licence for furnishing the same before the Insurance Company, therefore, the evidence coming forth is to the effect F.A.O. No. 4349 of 2007 -3- *** that the driving licence was not produced before the police at the time of his arrest or during investigation, then how it could be assumed that the said licence was shown to the appellant. No details of the driving licence have come to light to enable the Insurance Company to reach the conclusion about its validity. Thus, in the absence of the driving licence the Insurance Company was unable to examine its validity. However, at the same time, Insurance Company has produced on record the documentary evidence i.e. Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 in order to establish that the respondent No.2 was not issued any driving licence by the Licencing Authority, Ludhiana. As such, it could well be observed that the Insurance Company has been successful in shifting the onus to prove that the plea set up by the appellant was not correct inasmuch as the fact that he had seen the driving licence or that he verified about its genuineness and validity. Resultantly, findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.2 stand affirmed. Compensation as awarded by the Tribunal appears to be quite fair, adequate and reasonable. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. September 11, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge