F.A.O. No. 3616 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 3616 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 5.5.2010. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Surender Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Ms. Nupur Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for respondents No. 4 and 5. RAJESH BINDAL, J **** Insurance Company is in appeal before this Court challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, (for short 'the Tribunal') on the ground that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not carrying appropriate driving licence. Briefly the facts are that on 5.9.2005, Bala was going on motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-16-E-1634 along with Ram Kishan and Rakesh. When they were about 40 yards ahead of Bawani Khera octroi, a tractor bearing registration No. HR-21-4311 being driven by respondent No. 4 rashly, negligently and at a very high speed came there. He did not blow any horn and hit the motor cycle, due to which they received multiple injuries. Bala died due to those injuries at the spot and Rakesh was taken to General Hospital, Bawani Khera. The driver ran away from the place of accident. A case punishable under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') was registered at Police Station Bawani Khera against respondent No. 4. In the claim petition filed before the Tribunal the respondents/claimants were awarded compensation of Rs. 2,57,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle involved in the accident was a tractor and the driver of the vehicle was not having driving licence authorizing him to drive a tractor as it was merely permitting him to drive motor cycle, scooter, car and jeep. She submitted that the witness from the office of Licensing Authority was produced who stated that as per the record there was no such permission granted to the driver. However, F.A.O. No. 3616 of 2007 2 she did not dispute the fact that the driving licence produced by the driver on record which was duly signed by the Licensing Authority, clearly mentioned that the driver was permitted to drive tractor as well. The contention was that when in the record of the Licensing Authority licence was not issued for tractor, the benefit of some words mentioned on the licence should not be given. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 submitted that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is totally misconceived. Copy of the driving licence produced on record clearly established that the driver was permitted to drive a tractor. It was mentioned on the driving licence that he was granted licence to drive motorcycle, scooter, car, jeep and tractor only. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that the licence is a forged document. All what is sought to be submitted is that in the record with the Licensing Authority the word 'tractor' was not found mentioned. In case that is so, the driver cannot be made to suffer on that account as he is not a person who is in custody of the record. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. It is not in dispute that the driving licence produced on record clearly mentions that the driver is authorised to drive a tractor. Photocopy of the driving licence produced on record was perused in Court which apparently did not show that the word 'tractor' has been interpolated lateron after its issuance. The dispute is sought to be raised on the ground that in the record with the Licensing Authority, the word 'tractor' has not been mentioned. This cannot be said to be a reason to deny the driver the benefit of the licence granted to him under the signatures of the Licensing Authority. The issuance of licence and the signatures of Licensing authority thereon are not in dispute. No other material was produced by the Insurance Company on record to show that infact the driver was not permitted to drive a tractor. The licence is valid from March 12, 2000 to May 5, 2011 and the accident in question took place on September 5, 2005. Meaning thereby it cannot be said that quite close to the date of accident the licence mentioning the word 'tractor' was got issued in connivance with someone in the office of Licensing Authority. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 5.5.2010. JUDGE Reema