FAO No. 2355 of 1994 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 2355 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.4.2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited ..... Appellant vs Smt. P. Saroja and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. L. M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. A. S. Dhindsa, Advocate for Mrs. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for respondent no. 5. Rajesh Bindal J. The Insurance company is in appeal before this Court challenging the award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby the appellant and respondent nos. 4 and 5 were held liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally. Briefly, the facts are that on 19.2.1991, P. Mathialagan, who was employed in the military, was returning to his unit at Chandimandir from Panchkula after doing routine exercise. He was driving Jeep No. 84-B-31612-E and Lance Naik Mangal Singh was also sitting in the said jeep. After dropping B. C. Major D. S. Mann, when they reached near main gate of 2 Corps JCO's Mess, on Panchkula-Kalka Road, a truck bearing registration no. CH-01-A/6488, driven by respondent no. 4 in a rash and negligent manner, came from Pinjore side. The driver of the truck in the process of overtaking a vehicle, dashed it with the jeep and as a result thereof the jeep turned turtle. In the said accident, P. Mathialagan sustained multiple injuries and taken to Command Hospital, Chandimandir where he was declared dead. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The petition filed by the claimants was allowed by the learned Tribunal holding the appellant and respondent nos. 4 and 5 liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was not proved, the same should be termed as fake document and on that account the learned Tribunal should not have put the burden on the insurance company rather it is the liability of the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. FAO No. 2355 of 1994 -2- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. The insurance company in order to prove the licence as fake document, examined its one officer namely Jagmohan Singh, Assistant Administrative Officer. It was stated by said Jagmohan Singh that K. S. Sharma, the investigator of the insurance company, had found the licence, Ex. R1, forged document. However, a perusal of the paper-book shows that copy of the licence, Ex. R1, was obtained by the insurance company from the file of criminal case. The licence in question was allegedly verified by Mr. K. S. Sharma, but the said investigator was not examined by the appellant insurance company and in the absence of that the statement of Jagmohan Singh had no value, as has rightly been observed by the learned Tribunal. No witness from the licencing authority from whom the licence was evidently issued was produced to discharge the onus of issue put on the insurance company. It was further recorded by the learned Tribunal that the said licence had been renewed from many authorities. In view of the above, I don't find any merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. 30.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge