In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CM No. 6388-CII of 2007 and F.A.O. No.1331 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: November 30, 2009 Raj Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. Surjit Kaur and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. I.S. Brar, Advocate for the respondents No.1, 1-A and 4. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the respondent No.5. A.N. Jindal, J This is owner's appeal for setting aside the award dated 3.11.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimants-respondents No.1 to 4 and against the appellant and respondents No.5 and 6 jointly and severally. Learned counsel for the appellant has moved an application for leading additional evidence in order to prove the driving licence verification report dated 23.1.2003 and the certificate issued by the National Insurance Company Limited on the record in order to prove that the respondent No.6 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Mr. Ravinder Arora, along with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocates have accepted this fact that on verification of the documents it came to light that the respondent No.6 was holding a valid driving licence No.15797/DTO/Amritsar dated 20.8.1985. As such, the evidence sought to be led by the appellant has become essential for just decision of the case. If the relevant documents i.e. driving licence and the verification report are allowed to be taken on record by way of additional evidence then the prime question of liability could be rightly determined. The Tribunal while allowing the claim petition vide F.A.O. No.1331 of 2007 -2- *** award dated 3.11.2006, had fastened the liability upon the respondents No.5, 6 and the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants. However, the company was given the right to recover from respondents No.5 and 6 on account of the breach of the terms of the policy of insurance. Since it is found from the documents as referred to above that the driver was holding a valid driving licence, therefore, these documents are necessary to be brought on record for just cause and in order to enable the court to pronounce the judgment. As such, the application for additional evidence is allowed and the documents Annexures A-1 and A-2 are brought on record. Since company has not led any evidence to rebut these documents, therefore, it stands established that the respondent driver was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Since it is established by way of additional evidence i.e. Annexures A-1 and A-2 produced on record that the respondent No.6 was holding a valid driving licence, therefore, no breach of terms and condition of the insurance policy stands established. As such, findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.6 are bound to be reversed and are hereby reversed. In the wake of the aforesaid discussions, this appeal is partly accepted and as such while reversing the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.6, it is observed that the respondent No.6 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Consequently, the impugned judgment is modified while holding that it is the insurer who only would be liable to pay the compensation alone. No order as to costs. November 30, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge