FAO Nos. 1019 to 1023 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. FAO No. 1019 OF 2010 (o&m) Date of decision: 23.9.2011. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Ram Chander and others ...Respondents 2. FAO No. 1020 OF 2010 (o&m) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Braham Parkash and others ...Respondents 3. FAO No. 1021 OF 2010 (o&m) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Smt.Sudesh Kumar and others ...Respondents 4. FAO No. 1022 OF 2010 (o&m) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Smt.Sudesh Kumar and others ...Respondents FAO Nos. 1019 to 1023 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 5. FAO No. 1023 OF 2010 (o&m) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Rajender Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for respondent -owner of offending vehicle. *** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.(Oral) Applications for condonation of delay. There are different number of days' delay in filing all these appeals. In view of the reasons mentioned in the applications, delay in filing the same is hereby condoned. CMs stand disposed of accordingly. Main Appeals This judgment shall dispose of the cases bearing FAO Nos. 1019 to 1023 of 2010, which have been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award 9.10.2009 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon (for short 'the Tribunal), vide which claim petitions filed by the claimants have been allowed. The claim petitions have been decided by a common award by the Tribunal. FAO Nos. 1019 to 1023 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Leaned counsel for the appellant contends that the accident took place on 22.2.2007 and on that day, the driver was authorised to drive only light transport vehicle/ heavy transport vehicle w.e.f. 25.9.2005 and subsequently an endorsement was made in the driving licence on 28.2.2007, wherein the holder was authorised to heavy transport passenger vehicle. He further contends that the driver held two driving licences for the same period, which is in contravention with Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-owner submits that the driver was employed on the basis of the driving licence Ex.RW3 issued by the Transport Authority, Mathura (U.P.). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file. From perusal of the record, it emerges that the verification with respect to the aforementioned two licences is not as per law. The verification being not a valid verification, all these appeals are remanded back to the Tribunal only on the limited issue of verification of Ex.RW3, driving licence. The learned Tribunal is directed to get the driving licence Ex.RW3, verified as per the provisions contained in the Act and decide the same, afresh. Findings on issue No.5 are reversed. The Tribunal shall afford an opportunity to lead evidence to each award and decide this issue afresh. Accordingly, all the appeals stand disposed of . FAO Nos. 1019 to 1023 of 2010 (O&M) -4- The accident is of the year 2007, so the Tribunal will try to decide the case expeditiously. The parties through their counsel to appear before the learned Tribunal on 5.11.2011. 23.9.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE