FAO 226 of 2005. 17.12.2009 Present: Mr. K.B.Khajuria, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Kalbhushan Khajuria, counsel for respondents 1 to 4. Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, counsel for respondent No. 9. Mr. B.M.Chauhan, counsel for respondent No. 10. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein, who is the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. While deciding the petition, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in para 26 of the judgment, holds: “26. In this case it was also observed that when the owner hires a driver he will have to check whether the driver has a driving licence or not. If the driver produces the driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The Insurance Companies cannot expect owners to make enquiries with the RTO’s which are spread all over the country, so as to ascertain the validity of the licence. Thus it is held that -2- the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the amount of compensation and is at liberty to recover the same from respondent No. 1 who is both owner as well as driver of the ill fated vehicle. The issues are decided accordingly.” The last line of the judgment writes: “Thus it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the amount of compensation and is at liberty to recover the same from respondent No. 1 who is both owner as well as driver of the ill fated vehicle. The issues are decided accordingly.” It is undisputed before me as also from the evidence on record that the appellant herein who was arrayed as respondent No. 1 before the trial Court is not the owner of the vehicle but is the driver. There is an obvious error in the judgment. Liability, if any, was that of the respondents jointly and severally, that is to say both respondents 1 and 2. It is not disputed before me that respondent No. 2 is the owner of the vehicle. In these circumstances, the judgment of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the -3- liability shall be of the driver and the owner, that is respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally which is also the settled law. It is also undisputed before me that no appeal has been preferred by the owner. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. December 17, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.