FAO NO. 6442 OF 2011 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 6442 OF 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 3.11.2011 Smt. Dharmi ...Appellant Versus Smt.Sharda and others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.SS Dalal, Advocate for the appellant. **** Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is the owner of the offending tractor bearing registration No. HYS- 8379, assailing the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), whereby she was held liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. Brief facts of the case are that earlier the learned Tribunal vide award dated 7.9.1995 (Annexure P-1) held liable respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to pay the compensation to the tune of ` 5,12,000/- jointly and severally. Aggrieved against the said award, the Insurance Company filed an FAO No.122 of 1996. On 18.11.2010, this Court remanded back the matter to the learned Tribunal to decide afresh on the issue of driving licence. Further, the learned Tribunal vide his order dated 16.8.2011, decided the issue of driving licence in favour of the Insurance company by observing that the Insurance Company has successfully established on FAO NO. 6442 OF 2011 (O&M) (2) record that respondent No.2-Rishala was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal has acted erroneously by deciding the issue on driving licence against the appellant on the statement of RW2 Akshya Kumar Rautarya, Junior Assistant, Licencing Authority, Cuttack, whereby he deposed that the said driving licence i.e. Ex.R1 was not issued by their authority. He further stated that Balwan Singh RW3 stated that he has brought the record of renewal of driving licences pertaining to the year 1993-96 and as per entry No.9472, licence number R-51246 of Rishala son of Gopala has been renewed after getting receipt of NOC from the issuing authority. Further contends that the appellant tendered his affidavit stating that the licence produced by the driver had been verified at the time of the employment of driver Rishala and they also took the driving test of Rishala. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to make the payment of compensation. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file carefully. From perusal of the case file, it emerges that the driving licence bearing No.51246/87, dated 18.2.1987, produced by the owner of the offending tractor had not been issued by the licencing authority, Cuttuck, which is proved from the testimony of Akashya Kumar Rautarya, Junior Assistant, Licencing Authority, Cuttuck. Further, merely on the basis of the statement of the owner that before giving employment to Rishala as driver, she verified his licence, which assertion is not supported by documentary FAO NO. 6442 OF 2011 (O&M) (3) evidence, it cannot be held that the licence was got verified from any authority. As a sequel of above discussion, no interference is warranted in the well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. As such, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed in limine being bereft of any merit. 3.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE