FAO No.3425 of 2003(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.3425 of 2003(O&M) General Manager, NFL ... Appellant VERSUS Krishna Devi and others ... Respondents and FAO No.1799 of 2004(O&M) Kuldip Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Krishna Devi and others ... Respondents Decided on : September 25, 2009 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for National Fertiliser Limited. Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate for Kuldeep Singh driver. Mr.N.K.Khosla, Advocate for the respondent - Insurance Company. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. FAO Nos.3425 of 2003 and 1799 of 2004, challenging the award dated 18.2.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (herein referred as `the FAO No.3425 of 2003(O&M) [ 2 ] Tribunal'), whereby, a compensation to the tune of Rs.2,41,200/- along with interest @ 9% per annum was awarded in favour of Krishna Devi – claimant (herein referred as the claimant), on account of the death of her son Anne Kumar, in a motor vehicle accident. While holding that driver Kuldip Singh – respondent No.2 (herein referred as `driver') was not holding a valid driving licence, the Tribunal directed that in case the United India Insurance Company – respondent No.3 (herein referred as the `Insurance Company) makes the payment of the award amount, then it would be at liberty to recover the same from the owner - appellant i.e. National Fertilizer Limited (herein referred as the owner). Now, the driver as well as the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Bus bearing Reg.No.PB-12C-1899 (herein referred as the offending vehicle) have challenged the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the validity of the driving licence, by filing these separate appeals. Brief resume of facts is that the claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation on the death of Anne Kumar against the Insurance Company as also the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The claim petition was contested by all of them by filing their replies. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether Anne Kumar died as a result of rash and negligent driving of bus No.PB-12C-1899 by respondent No.2 on 18.8.2001? OPP 2. Whether respondent No.2 was holding valid driving licence, at the time of accident? OPR-3 FAO No.3425 of 2003(O&M) [ 3 ] 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so how much and from whom? OPP 4. Relief.” While deciding issue No.2, the Tribunal observed that the driver has produced driving licence (Ex.R1), which was valid upto 15.7.2002, whereas, the accident took place on 18.8.2001. However, for rebutting this piece of evidence, the Insurance Company produced a report (Ex.R5) issued by the Licensing Authority, Hamirpur disclosing that the said licence has been issued in the name of one Uday Veer Singh. Challenging the report (Ex.R5), counsel for the appellants has urged that the report is not per-se admissible in evidence, and without examining its author, it cannot be said that this report was actually issued by the Licensing Authority. As such, no reliance could be placed upon the same. Any way, the appellant in order to further authenticate that the driver was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident wants to place on record certain documents stating that in fact, the driver (Kuldip Singh Banga) had duly applied to the appellant Company for employment as cleaner through Employment Exchange and after clearing all the formalities, including his capability to drive heavy duty vehicle and after checking the licence in his possession, he was appointed as a cleaner on 25.1.1994. After watching his performance for six months, vide order dated 30.7.1994, he was confirmed as cleaner on regular basis w.e.f. 23.7.1994 and then promoted as driver on 15.11.1996. Thereafter, he was confirmed as driver grade-III vide order dated 15.5.1997 and later on, FAO No.3425 of 2003(O&M) [ 4 ] promoted as driver grade-II vide order dated 17.7.2000 and was confirmed as such on 3.1.2001. Counsel for the appellant – Company states that they intend to prove the aforesaid facts by way of additional evidence. Having heard the rival contentions, it may be observed that the Tribunal fell in error in placing reliance upon the verification report (Ex.R5), which has not been proved by its author or signatory. Further more, in order to satisfy the conditions, the owner/appellant before employing the driver had assured himself that his licence was valid and he was capable to drive the vehicle. As such, he has sought opportunity to bring on record the documents, as referred to above. On thorough probe of the case, it appears that the case essentially needs re-consideration after remand to the Tribunal, as no sufficient opportunity was given to the appellants to lead evidence on their turn. Resultantly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.2 are set aside and the case is remitted back to the Tribunal (Trial Court) for decision on this issue afresh and pass the judgment, in accordance with law, after providing opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence on the said issue. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. September 25, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE