- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No.87 of 2002 & Cross Objection No.394 of 2002 Decided on September 23rd , 2010 _______________________________________________________ Kanwar Singh & Others ...Appellants Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & others ...Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Sh. Ajay Chandel, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. A. K. Sharma, Advocate For respondents No.2 to 4 : Sh. N. K. Sharma, Advocate _______________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) By means of this judgment, appeal FAO(MVA) No.87 of 2002 as also Cross Objections No.394 of 2002, are being disposed of. Appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle, challenging the quantum of compensation, as also the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandi, H.P., that the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award, on account of the driver of the vehicle, not possessing a valid and effective license. Cross 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - objections have been filed by the claimants, for enhancement of compensation. 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal as also the Cross Objections may be noticed. On 19.07.1996 when deceased was grazing his heard of goats and sheeps at a place called Darwar- Gharwasra, in Tehsil Sarkaghat of Mandi District, and happened to be present by the side of the road, a jeep bearing registration No.HP- 2B-0167 , being driven in a rash or negligent manner, hit him, as a result of which, he died on the spot. Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by his wife, a son and a daughter. Besides the owner and the driver, Insurance Company, with which the vehicle was registered for third party risk, was also impleaded as respondent. Occurrence of accident was not denied. However it was denied that the cause of accident was rash or negligent driving. Insurance Company pleaded, that the license possessed by the driver was not valid and effective. 3. Tribunal after holding inquiry held that accident took place because of rash or negligent driving of vehicle by Sh.Kamlesh Kumar, one of the appellants. Plea raised by the Insurance Company, that the driver did not possess a valid and effective license was accepted. A sum of Rs.1,25,500/- was assessed as compensation and ordered to be paid to the claimants. Liability to pay the compensation, was fastened on the owner and the driver of the vehicle. Insurance Company was held to be, not liable. - 3 - 4. Owner and driver of the vehicle have filed the appeal, challenging the finding that Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned counsel for the claimants does not press the cross objections and same are, therefore, dismissed. 5. Ld. counsel representing the owner and driver of the vehicle, has taken me through that portion of the award of the MACT, where the plea of Insurance Company, that it is not liable to pay compensation on account of the license being not valid, has been discussed. Learned Tribunal has held that license Exhibit RX, produced by the driver is fake and forged. To support this finding, Ld. Tribunal has placed reliance on the testimony of RW 1/1 Sh. Padam Singh, an official from the office of Licencing Officer, Mall Road, Delhi. License Ex. RX bears No. P 94040945 AV. Date of issue of license as mentioned on Ex. RX is 25.04.1994. 6. RW-1/1 Sh. Padam Singh stated that as per record maintained in the office of Licencing Authority, Mall Road, Delhi, License No.94040945 was issued not on 24.05.1994, as the date given in the license Exhibit RX, but on 11.04.1999 and it was issued not in favour of appellant Kamlesh Kumar, but in the name of one Randhir Singh. 7. As a matter of fact, License Ex. RX has not been issued by Licencing Authority, Mall Road, Delhi, but by Licensing Authority, Anand Vihar, Delhi. This aspect of the matter appears to have - 4 - escaped the notice of the learned Tribunal. Not only this, there is an application of the Insurance Company on the record of the learned Tribunal, in which prayer was made for placing on record a report of Surveyor engaged by the Insurance Company to report about the accident in question. Application was filed on 04.06.2001. Attested copy of the report of Surveyor was also filed with this application. The date of the report is 08.01.1997. As per this report, license No.P-94040945 had been issued by RTO of Delhi in the name of appellant Kamlesh Kumar and it authorized him to drive motor car as also motor-cycle. This report, having been submitted by the Insurance Company itself can be used against it, even though it has not been proved. Learned Tribunal has ignored this report as also the application, which was moved for filing the report on record. This report when seen in the light of the fact that RW 1/1 Padam Singh was from a different office, disproves the plea of the Insurance Company that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license. 8. In view of the above stated position, appeal filed by the owner and the driver of the vehicle is allowed, and it is ordered that besides the owner and the driver, Insurance Company is also liable to satisfy the award and all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation money, along with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. (Surjit Singh) Judge. September 23rd, 2010 - 5 - (Raj)