F.A.O.NO. 2010 OF 1999 and 1 F.A.O.NO. 2011 OF 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 2010 OF 1999 Date of decision:22nd July, 2010 United India Insurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Ram Bahadur and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 2011 OF 1999 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Prem Raj and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. V.Ramswaroop, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident and dispose of by the same order. 2. On a plea by the Insurance Company that there was no valid driving licence. The Tribunal has dealt with it under issue no. 7 in para 21 which reads as follows:- “In order to prove this issue, the Insurance Company has examined a solitary witness RW1 F.A.O.NO. 2010 OF 1999 and 2 F.A.O.NO. 2011 OF 1999 Sat Narain Sharma, Licencing Clerk, Regional Transport Office, Alwar who has deposed that Ex.P1 driving licence was not issued from Licensing Authority in the name of Liyakat respondent No. 1. However, in the state of cross examination, he has deposed that driving licence Ex.P1 is valid from 24.11.91 to 23.11.94. Further his cross examination also reveals that he has not brought the record pertaining to the period for which driving licence Ex.P1 is valid i.e. From 24.11.91 to 23.11.94. He has further admitted in cross examination that he has brought the record relating to 4.7.91 to 17.8.91. It lends credence to this glaring fact that RW1 has utterly failed to bring the record with regard to period of validity of driving licence Ex.P1. Consequently, I arrive at unescapable conclusion that respondent no. 1 Liyakat was holding a valid driivng licence at the time of accident in question which took place on 9.12.1994.” 3. The reasoning of the Tribunal is correct and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The appeals are dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 22nd July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik