IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. F.A.O.(MVA) No.: 187 of 2004. Reserved on: 16.9.2008. Decided on: 23.10.2008. United India Insurance Co., Ltd. … … Appellant. Versus Smt. Susheel Kumari and others. … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. K.S. Banyal, Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7. Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for respondent No.9. Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.10 and 11. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This F.A.O. (M.V.A.) is directed against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-(II), Una, H.P. in M.A.C. Petition No.112/01/1998 dated 18.3.2004. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this F.A.O. are that Shri Kimti Lal aged 38 years was running a tea stall and on 27.2.1998 when at about 2.00 p.m. he was standing near the gate of petrol pump, Una, a truck bearing No.HIU-1025 being driven by respondent No.8 stopped near the gate. Another truck bearing No.HP-21-3737 driven by respondent No.6 while being reversed struck with the electric pole. The electric wire snapped and it fell on the deceased. He sustained multiple injuries. He was rushed to the hospital and he was declared brought dead by the doctor at the hospital. The legal heirs of deceased Kimti Lal preferred a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Una, H.P. seeking compensation amounting to rupees seven lacs. The respondents filed their respective replies. The case set up by the owner and driver of truck bearing No.HIU-1025 was that the truck was not involved in the accident. The owner and driver of truck bearing No.HP-21-3737 have also denied the factum of accident. The case set up by the Insurance Company was that the drivers of both the trucks were not holding any valid and effective driving licences. The H.P.S.E.B. has also denied its role in the accident. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal absolved the owner and driver of truck No.HIU- 1025. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence led by the parties awarded a sum of Rs.2,13,800/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition, i.e. 4.6.1998. The appellant-Insurance Company and respondents No.6 and 7 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. The appellant-Insurance Company was directed to indemnify the owner. The present F.A.O. has been preferred by the Appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 18.3.2004. - 3 - Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala has strenuously argued that respondent No.6 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, i.e. 27.2.1998. He then contended that the respondent No.6 was in possession of fake licence as per statement of RW-4. Mr. Jagdish Thakur has supported the award dated 18.3.2004 while appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. K.S. Banyal appearing on behalf of respondents No.6 and 7 has supported the award dated 18.3.2004. The name of respondent No.8 was deleted during the course of hearing of this appeal. Mr. Baldev Singh has also supported the impugned award on behalf of respondent No.9. Mr. Vinod Thakur has supported the award dated 18.3.2004 on behalf of respondents No.10 and 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record carefully. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the respondent No.6 was holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident or not. He (respondent No.6) had appeared as RW-1 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. He has deposed that he was in possession of a valid driving licence and the same was issued from Dehradun. In his cross-examination, he has denied that the driving licence Ex.RW-1/B was fake. However, he has further stated in his cross-examination that he has shown his driving licence to the owner of truck pursuant to which he was engaged as driver. RW-4 Shri Ramesh Chand has brought the record from R.T.O., Dehradun. He has deposed that in the year 1986 no licence was issued with serial number L-19842. He has further deposed that no driving licence was issued in the name of Shri Lekh Raj son of Shri Jagan Nath. In Ex.RW-1/B the - 4 - place of issuance of the driving licence is from Dehradun. However, in view of the statement of RW-4, Shri Ramesh Chand, it is evident that Shri Lekh Raj, respondent No.6 was not in possession of the valid or effective driving licence and the licence in his possession was fake. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in para 25 of the award despite coming to the conclusion that the driving licence was not found to have been issued by the concerned Motor Licensing Authority, has fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. There was fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. The appellant-Insurance Company had proved and produced the driving licence verification from the original licensing authority at Dehradun. The driving licence bearing No.L-19842 was never issued in the name of Shri Lekh Raj as per the record. No evidence has been led by either the owner, i.e. respondent No.7 or the driver, i.e. respondent No.6 of the truck bearing No.HP-21- 3737 to establish that the licence was genuine. The owner of the offending vehicle has not appeared in the witness box to say that he got the driving licence of the driver verified before engaging him as such. As such, the Insurance Company cannot be held responsible to indemnify the insured. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award dated 18.3.2004 is modified to the extent that the appellant-Insurance Company is absolved from indemnifying the insured, i.e. respondent No.7. There shall be no order as to costs. October 23, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma), (sck) Judge.