FAO No. 4975 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4975 of 2003 Date of decision 16.2.2010. Darshan Singh ...... Appellant. versus Jagir Singh and others ...... Respondents. FAO No. 4976 of 2003 Darshan Singh ...... Appellant. versus Achhru Singh and others ...... Respondents. FAO No. 4977 of 2003 Darshan Singh ...... Appellant. versus Ranjit Kaur and others ...... Respondents. FAO No. 4975 of 2003 2 Present : Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pardeep Goel, Advocate. K.C.PURI. J. By this common order, I intend to dispose of FAO No. 4975 of 2003-Darshan Singh versus Jagir Singh and others, FAO No. 4976 of 2003- Darshan Singh versus Achhru Singh and others and FAO No. 4977 of 2003-Darshan Singh versus Ranjit Kaur and others, as these appeals arise from the same award. For convenience facts are being taken from FAO No.4975 of 2003. Appellants, in the above mentioned appeals, prayed for setting aside of the impugned award dated 1.10.2002 to the extent of their liability for paying compensation amount to the claimants. The facts recapitulated from the record is that on 27.9.1999 at about 9.00 p.m., Gurmit Singh (since deceased ) was coming from village Magar to his native village Daon via Landran-Sante Majra on his scooter bearing registration No.PB-10-Q-3696 at a normal speed on the correct side of the road. Achhar Singh was sitting on the pillion of his scooter. When they reached in the area of village Sante Majra, one tractor bearing registration No.PB-65-2045 being driven by Jasbir Singh alias Kala in a rash and negligent manner was brought on the main road from the branch road and struck against the scooter of Gurmit Singh. As a result thereof, Gurmit Singh received serious injuries and died at the spot, whereas Achhar Singh was badly hurt and his both legs were fractured besides fracture of his left arm and other injuries were also sustained by him in the said accident. FAO No. 4975 of 2003 3 The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing registration No,PB-65-2045 by respondent-appellant-Jasbir Singh. FIR No.151 dated 28.9.1999 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was recorded at Police Station Kharar by Jagir Singh. The claimants therefore, filed claim petitions before the Tribunal for grant of compensation. On notice, respondents No.1 and 2 jointly contested all the claim petitions on the identical grounds that no accident, as alleged by the claimants, had taken place and that the respondents were not liable to pay any compensation amount. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed separate written statement and contested the claim petitions by taking up similar preliminary objections that the owner of the tractor bearing registration No. PB-65- 2045 did not inform the insurance company after the accident, therefore, they denied the accident. Respondent No.3 further alleged that driver of the tractor was not holding a valid and effective driving licence issued by the Competent Authority at the time of the accident and, therefore, terms and conditions of the insurance policy had been violated, consequently absolving the answering respondent from its liability. Respondent No.3 denied other averments and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions. Following issues were framed for adjudication :- 1. Whether Gurmit Singh died in the road accident, which took place on27.9.1999 at about 9 p.m. in the area of village Sante Majra, due to rash and negligent driving of tractor No. PB-65- 2045 by Jasbir Singh respondent ?OPP FAO No. 4975 of 2003 4 2. Whether the claimants are the legal representative of deceased Gurmit Singh ? OPP 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident ? OPR-3. 4. Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom ?OPP. 5. Relief. The parties had led their respective evidence on the aforesaid issues. The learned Tribunal after appraisal of the evidence, awarded compensation to the claimants holding respondents to make the payment of the compensation amount jointly and severally along with 9% interest from the date of petition till realization. Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid award, the respondents- appellants preferred this appeal to the extent of their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone thorough the records of the case. The only point involved in the present appeal is whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation in case the driver was driving the tractor but was holding a driving licence in respect of motor car and motor cycle. The said controversy is not res integra. In authority Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Angad Kol and others 2009 ACJ 1411 has categorically held that even if driver had licence for driving LMV and he FAO No. 4975 of 2003 5 was driving the goods transport vehicle or omnibus, Insurance Company is not liable. The Division Bench of our own High Court also held in authority National Insurance Company Limited vs. Shinder Kaur 1998 (1) P.L.R. 369 that a driver holding valid driving licence to drive motor car/scooter cannot be held to be holding valid driving licence for driving a tractor also. So, in view of the above authoritative pronouncements all the three appeals are without any merit and the same stand dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE February 16 , 2010 sv