FAO No. 664 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 664 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.02.2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Amarjit Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate, for the appellant. VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) This appeal, by the Insurance Company, is directed against the award dated 17.12.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, allowing the claim petition filed by the respondent/claimants, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim petition was contested by the appellant/Insurance Company by denying the averments made in the claim petition. An objection was also raised that the driver of the bus was not having a valid and effective driving licence, and that the bus was being plied without a valid route permit. In view of the stand taken by the appellant/Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal framed the following issue: - “3. Whether the driver of offending bus was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident? If so, its effect? OPR-5” The learned Tribunal answered this issue against the appellant by recording the following finding: - FAO No. 664 of 2010 (O&M) -2- “But on the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. has argued that since the driver of the offending vehicle was not in possession of a valid driving licence at the time of accident, as such respondent No. is not liable to compensate the claimants. But in support of this, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 have referred to copy of driving licence Ex.R5, Ex.R6 & Ex.R7 and original verification report Ex.R8. As per these documents, driving licence of respondent No.1 Inder Singh was renewed from 12.4.2007 to 23.3.2008 when the accident took place on 13.12.2007, it means at the time of accident, respondent No.1 Inder Singh was holding a valid driving licence. As such, it cannot be said that respondent No.1 driver of the offending bus was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident.” The learned counsel for the appellant has challenge the finding of the learned Tribunal by referring to the statement of RW1 Sampuran Singh official from DTO Patiala, to contend that the learned Tribunal failed to notice that the original licence, which was subsequently renewed, was not valid but a fake licence. RW1 in his statement merely stated that they had no record of the licence produced by the driver, which was, in fact, issued by that very office. It was proved on record that the licence was validly renewed 2-3 times by the same licensing authority. Once, the licence is renewed by the licensing authority, which originally issued the licence, it cannot be believed that the original could be fake, as in that situation there could be no possibility of renewal of licence. The position would have been different, if the licence would FAO No. 664 of 2010 (O&M) -3- have been issued by some other licensing authority and subsequently renewed by different licensing authority. As it would not be possible for the said licensing authority to know whether the original licence was fake or original. The learned Tribunal committed no error in holding that the driver was having a valid licence at the time of accident. No ground is made out to interfere with the award passed. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 16, 2010 R.S.