FAO No.354 of 2003(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.354 of 2003(O&M) Decided on : September 25, 2009 Gurdev Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Raman Kumar and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.H.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.N.K.Khosla, Advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The appellant Gurdev Singh (herein referred as the appellant) has assailed the award dated 15.11.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby, compensation to the tune of Rs.2,20,000/- was awarded to respondent No.1 Raman Kumar (herein referred as respondent No.1) on account of the injuries suffered by him, against the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3 jointly and severally. However, it was observed that on payment of compensation amount, respondent No.3 - Union India Assurance Company (herein referred as respondent No.3) would be at liberty to recover the same from the appellant. The claim petition, as preferred by respondent No.1 was FAO No.354 of 2003(O&M) [ 2 ] contested by respondent No.3, whereas, the appellant and respondent No.2 were proceeded against exparte before the Tribunal. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries in the accident caused by respondent No.2 by driving Truck No.PB-10-JF- 0871 in a rash and negligent manner? OPP 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.2 was not having the valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 4. Relief.” Both the parties led evidence. Ultimately, the claim application of respondent No.1 was accepted against the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3, with right of recovery from the appellant by respondent No.3. As such, the appellant assails the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.3. Having scrutinised the record, it transpires that the Tribunal did not record the specific finding on issue No.3, but it recorded some observations in para 11 of the impugned award, wherein, it was recorded that respondent Bachhittar Singh was not holding a valid driving licence. These observations are based only on a verification report Ex.R1, which is not per-se admissible in evidence. To the contrary, the appellant has developed a case by arguing that he has been deprived of his valuable right to cross-examine the FAO No.354 of 2003(O&M) [ 3 ] witnesses and lead defence in support of his case. It is further contended that even if on the basis of the evidence so led by the Insurance Company, the onus could not be shifted. Irrespective of the fact that the appellant was proceeded exparte, it would be suffice to say that the Tribunal did not act fairly, while relying upon the verification report, which is not otherwise proved by leading any evidence. As such, the findings returned on issue No.3 on the basis of purely inadmissible evidence are not acceptable. At the same time, the appellant also needs opportunity to lead evidence in support of issue No.3. As such, this case requires reconsideration on remand. Resultantly, I allow this appeal, set aside the impugned award and remit the case back to the Tribunal to decide the Issue No.3 afresh, after inviting evidence of both the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal (Trial Court) on 22.10.2009. September 25, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE