CR No. 7992 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 7992 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: December 8, 2010 Nachhtar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Asha Rani and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. GURDEV SINGH, J. The petitioner-Nachhtar Singh, who has been arrayed as respondent No.2 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind, in the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 to 7, has preferred the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 17.11.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the said Tribunal, dismissing, his application for proving the driving licence of respondent No. 1-driver, by way of additional evidence. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was filed against the present petitioner as the owner of the offending vehicle, Mithu Singh-respondent No.1 as the driver and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as insurer, regarding the death of Krishan Kumar, alleged to have been caused by the driving truck No. RJ-31G-4992 negligently by the said driver. The petitioner, alongwith the driver, filed a joint written statement in which it was pleaded that at the time of the alleged accident, the driver was holding a valid CR No. 7992 of 2010 2 driving licence. One driving licence No. 22104 was produced and exhibited as R.1. The clerk of the office of D.T.O., Moga was summoned alongwith record for proving the endorsement made on that licence for driving the Heavy Transport Vehicle (HTV). The petitioner moved an application for additional evidence stating therein that at the time he engaged the driver on his vehicle he had seen and checked his driving licence No. 2725 dated 30.12.2004 issued by the Licencing Authority, Farukhabad, U.P., which could not be tendered in evidence as he was not in possession thereof at that time. That application was opposed by the insurer on the ground that this driving licence is a procured one and cannot be allowed to be produced by way of additional evidence. The accident had taken place on 8.2.2009, whereas the endorsement on the driving licence on Ex. R.1 for HTV was made on 24.4.2009. No person can possess two driving licences simultaneously. After going through the record of the case and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the application of the petitioner for additional evidence was dismissed, vide the impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time the petitioner employed respondent No.1 (Mithu Singh) as driver of his vehicle he had seen his driving No. 2725 dated 30.12.2004, which could not be produced earlier as he was not in possession thereof. It cannot be said that this licence is a procured one. In fact, the other driving licence was got misplaced by the driver and he obtained this second driving licence. In order to nail the responsibility on the insurer, it is necessary for him to prove this driving licence and his application for additional evidence should have been allowed. Dismissal of that application is going to cause CR No. 7992 of 2010 3 an irreparable loss to him. There is no force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the joint reply to the claim petition filed by him as well as the driver no such plea was taken that he had engaged the driver on his vehicle after seeing the said licence. The plea was taken to the effect that the driver was holding a valid licence and it was in support of that plea that one driving licence Ex. R.1 has already been proved on the record. Faced with the situation that the endorsement for driving the HTV was made on that licence after the alleged accident took place, the petitioner has thought a nobel way of producing and proving another driving licence by way of additional evidence. It is a matter of common knowledge that fake driving licences are being procured by the drivers from the other states. It was for the petitioner to prove that despite exercise of due diligence he could not prove the other driving licence at the time he was producing his evidence. He even summoned the witness from the office of DTO, Moga, for proving the endorsement on the other driving licence and in view of the evidence already produced by him, it cannot be said that despite exercise of due diligence this licence was not in his knowledge. Even otherwise, the production and proving of this licence by way of additional evidence is not going to make any difference. Copy thereof has been annexed with the present petition as Annexure P/7. A perusal thereof shows that the originally it was issued on 31.12.2004 for motor-cycle and car. The endorsement was made on 15.4.2008 only for driving the Light Transport Vehicle (LTV) and not for HTV, whereas the alleged accident had taken place with the truck which is a heavy transport vehicle. No illegality was committed by the Tribunal, while dismissing the application of the CR No. 7992 of 2010 4 petitioner for additional evidence. There is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. December 8, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE