F.A.O.No. 3893 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 3893 of 2007 Date of Decision : 10.11.2008 Randhir Singh ....Appellant Versus Gurdial Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Amit Prashar, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is an appeal by the owner directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra dated 8.8.2007. The liability to satisfy the award was fastened upon the appellant, as the driver of the offending vehicle, which belonged to the appellant was found to be not having a driving licence on the date of the accident. The accident in this case occurred on 9.12.2005, whereas the licence stood expired on 27.5.2005. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that it has come in his testimony that he had taken adequate care and caution to ensure that the driver whom he had employed for operating the vehicle belonging to him was having a proper driving licence and F.A.O.No. 3893 of 2007 -2- after verification and taking his driving test he had offered the employment. In this view of the matter, it was contended that the appellant cannot be fastened with the liability to satisfy the award. Reliance was placed on Lal Chand v. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. JT 2007(10) SC 122. In this eventuality even if the worst is taken against the appellant the licence had been renewed subsequently covering the period of accident as well which is in the testimony of RW1. Apart from this, it was further contended that the apex court has already observed in a number of judgments that merely because a person was not having a driving licence does not imply that the liability has to be fastened upon the owner as it has further been established that the accident was a direct cause of the faulty/invalid licence being held by a driver. No one appears for the respondents despite service. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal deserves to be accepted. There is, indeed, testimony of the appellant himself who has stated in unequivocal terms that he had verified the driving licence of the driver, the photo copy of which is on record as Ex.R1, before engaging him. The licence was valid when he had engaged the driver and he had also taken a driving test of the driver. The said testimony remains unshattered during the cross-examination. That apart, there is evidence of RW1, who stated as under :- “I have brought the summoned record pertaining to issuance of driving licence of Avtar Singh alias Tara F.A.O.No. 3893 of 2007 -3- Singh son of Kala Singh bearing no.3098/T/77. The original record of this licence was burnt during Mandal agitation. The renewal of the licence was valid upto 27.2.2005. This was meant for driving motor cycle/scooter/car/jeep and tractor. As per our record, the licence was renewed from 13.2.2007 to 27.2.2010 vide renewal no.505. I have seen the photo copy of the driving licence Ex.R1 and the renewal endst. from 13.2.2007 to 27.2.2010 is in my hand. There is no entry regarding the continuity of this licence between 28.2.2005 to 12.2.2007. xxxxxx by Sh.R.P.Kaushik, Adv. This licence has never been cancelled as per my record. The licence is renewed for five years as per rules. Last renewal was upto 27.2.2005. Late fee for renewal was charged from the licencee and it was renewed for a period of five years i.e. up to 27.2.2010. xxxxxx by Shri Raj Singh, Adv. It is correct that the licence is renewed after receiving the late fee and it is renewed from the date of previous renewal till the date of next renewal and validity.” The facts of the case and the observations of the apex court in Lal Chand's case are straightway attracted to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and it is held that F.A.O.No. 3893 of 2007 -4- the appellant is not liable to satisfy the award and the insurance company shall be liable to satisfy the award. 10.11.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss