FAO No.1974 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.1974 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : January 15, 2010 Haryana Industrial Company Hisar and another ... Appellants VERSUS Sulochna and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.R.C.Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.5 – Insurance Company. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This appeal, preferred by the Haryana Industrial Company Hisar and Mehar Singh (herein referred as `the owner' and `the driver', respectively) is against the judgment dated 12.2.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (herein referred as `the Tribunal'), awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the claimants – respondents No.1 to 4 (herein referred as `the claimants') and against the appellants. However, it was further ordered that New India Assurance Company Limited - respondent No.5 shall satisfy the award and it shall have the right to recover the amount from the appellants. FAO No.1974 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] The claimants preferred a claim petition on account of the death of Pardeep Kumar in a motor vehicle accident. The claim petition was contested by the appellants and respondents No.5. Since the parties were at variance, therefore, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the death of Pardeep Kumar was caused in a vehicular accident on 4.12.2007 at Dhand by-pass Chowk, Kaithal on account of rash and negligent driving of Truck No.HRN-8652 by respondent No.1? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? OPR 4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPR 5. Whether the insured has knowingly permitted the driver to drive the vehicle without valid driving license and there was a willful breach of specified conditions in the policy, if so its effect? OPR-3 6. Whether vehicle in question was driven in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act, if so its effect? OPR-3 7. Whether the insured had no route permit to ply the vehicle in question at the time of alleged accident, if so its effect? OPR-3 8. Relief.” The Issue No.1 and 2 were decided in favour of the claimants, FAO No.1974 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] while Issue No.3 and 4 were decided against the respondents. While deciding Issue No.5,6 and 7, the Tribunal ordered that since the appellant No.2 was not holding a valid driving license, therefore, respondent No.5 would satisfy the award and would be at liberty to recover the same from the appellants. The prime argument raised by the appellants is qua Issue No.5. It is contended by the appellants that the license, produced by appellant No.2 (Ex.R1) for driving Heavy Motor Vehicles was issued by the RTA, Hisar and the evidence led by the respondent Insurance Company was not sufficient to hold this license as fake only on the ground that the Licensing Authority was not competent to issue the said license and it could be issued only by R.T.A. Admittedly, the license held by appellant No.2 was bearing No.M-23165/86. In order to prove the validity of this license, Gulab Singh, Clerk in the office of the Licensing Authority, Hisar appeared in the witness box as RW1 and stated that the said license was issued on 29.10.1986 in the name of appellant No.2 by the RTA, Hisar and not by their office. However, the verification report (Ex.R4) was prepared by him and he is from the office of Licensing Authority, Hisar. The Light Motor Vehicle licenses are issued by the Licensing Authority, Hisar, whereas, the licenses for Heavy Motor Vehicles are issued by the office of RTA. He stated that in the entire office, there is no record of the license (Ex.R1) and the verification report (Ex.R4), therefore, he cannot say as to whether the license was issued by the RTA office or not. Thus, to my mind, the Tribunal fell in error in appreciating the evidence in right perspective. The FAO No.1974 of 2009(O&M) [ 4 ] license (Ex.R1) having been issued for Heavy Motor Vehicles was not issued by the Licensing Authority i.e, SDM, Hisar, but was issued by the RTA, Hisar. Later on, it was renewed upto 19.11.2010 and at that time, no objection was raised that the said license was fake and cannot be renewed. No witness from the office of RTA, Hisar was summoned to prove that the license (Ex.R1) had not been issued by it. As such, the respondent No.5 – Insurance Company has failed to discharge its onus. While going further to convince the conscience of this Court, counsel for the appellants has placed on record copy of the report made by the Licensing Authority-cum-RTA, Hisar and copy of the verification made by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Hisar. Both these documents confirm this fact that appellant No.2 was holding a valid driving license to drive the Heavy Motor Vehicles at the time of the accident. Counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company has not denied these documents. While arguing the application for additional evidence (CM No.10110-CII of 2009), counsel for the appellants has argued that the license was valid at the time of the accident, therefore, no further proof was required to take the view other than that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was to be allowed and to hold that appellant No.2 was holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident. As such, the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No.5 stand reversed and the same is decided against respondent No.5 – Insurance Company. No other argument has been raised. FAO No.1974 of 2009(O&M) [ 5 ] Resultantly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned award is modified to the extent that respondent No.5 – Insurance Company is solely liable to pay the compensation and no right of recovery from the appellants, could be given. January 15, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE