FAO No. 3669 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3669 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.02.2010 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Gurdaspur ....Appellant Versus Smt. Salwinder Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate. VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) This appeal, by the Insurance Company, is directed against the award dated 2.6.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, vide which the claim petition filed by the claimants, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was allowed, and the respondent/claimants were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.62,000/- (Rupees sixty two thousand only) along with interest @ 6% per annum. The liability to pay compensation was contested by the Insurance Company, on the plea that the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal framed a specific issue, the onus of which was placed on the Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal decided issue No.3 i.e. regarding holding of valid licence, against the appellant. However, in the relief clause, the FAO No. 3669 of 2008 (O&M) -2- recovery rights were allowed to the Insurance Company from the owner. Learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No.3 cannot be sustained, as the driver failed to produce the licence, even though prayer for its production was made by moving the application. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, was that no liability could be fastened on the Insurance Company. On consideration, I find no reason to interfere with the award passed. The recovery rights have been allowed to the Insurance Company from the owner. Once, recovery rights have been given to the Insurance Company, there is hardly any reason to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the award. Grievance, if any, would be with the owner of the offending vehicle, on whom the liability is fastened, to pay to the Insurance Company, even though it was for Insurance Company t prove issue No.3. Consequently, finding no merit in this appeal, it is ordered to be dismissed. No costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 24, 2010 R.S.