FAO No. 4537 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4537 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.4.2010 (O&M) Harbir Singh ..Appellant v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Nupur Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the Insurance Company. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 6.2.2008, passed by the Tribunal, whereby while directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants at the first instance, it has been given right to recover the same from the appellant along with the driver. Briefly, the facts are that on 7.1.2005, deceased- Shekar along with Tarun was going to Hodel from Faridabad on his motor cycle. When he reached near RSPL Company, Faridabad, truck bearing No. HR-29H-7247, being driven rashly and negligently, hit the motor cycle, as a result of which Shekar received multiple injuries and ultimately died. In the claim petition filed by respondents No. 3 to 7-claimants, only respondents No. 3 and 4, being parents of the deceased, were awarded Rs. 3,05,000/- as compensation. It is against this award that the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, is before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the direction of the learned Tribunal in the impugned award giving right to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation, if paid to the claimants, from the appellant is patently erroneous. In terms of the evidence produced on record by the appellant, there was no question of issuing any such direction. He submitted that though the driving licence was produced on record before the Tribunal but the same could not be exhibited and on that account, the same was not considered by the Tribunal and the liability was fastened on the appellant as well as the driver. FAO No. 4537 of 2009 [2] On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that there is no error in the direction issued by the learned Tribunal, giving right to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the appellant, as the driving licence was not proved on record. The appellant in the present case had not taken due care before the engagement of the driver. The same being breach of the conditions of policy, the Insurance Company would not be liable to indemnify the insured. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Along with the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant had placed on record a photo copy of the driving licence along with application for permission to lead additional evidence. The Insurance Company was directed to verify the genuineness of the said licence. Vide letter (Annexure R2), the Investigator appointed by the Company on verification of the relevant records, opined that the driving licence held by the driver was genuine. It was initially issued by Regional Transport Officer, Faridabad, which was renewed and endorsed for HTV on 24.2.2001 by RTO, Noida and was valid from 24.2.2001 to 23.2.2004, 24.2.2004 to 23.2.2007 and again renewed on 12.3.2007 and valid upto 11.3.2010. Meaning thereby that on verification by the Insurance Company, the driving licence was found to be valid. In view of the stand of learned counsel for the Insurance Company endorsing the claim of the appellant that the driver of the vehicle was carrying a valid driving licence at the time of accident, the finding recorded by the Tribunal giving right to recover the amount of compensation from the appellant in addition to the driver of the vehicle is set aside. However, the other part of the impugned award will remain intact. On account of lapse and delay on the part of the owner of the vehicle in not getting the driving licence exhibited before the Tribunal, he is burdened with costs of Rs. 25,000/-, payable to the Insurance Company. The amount lying deposited in this court shall be paid to respondent No. 1 towards costs. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 30.4.2010 mk