FAO No. 331 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 331 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.1.2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .......... Appellant Versus Amarjit Kaur & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Vivek Singal , Advocate for Mr. R.N. Singal, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 6.10.2009, passed by the learned Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, vide which the claim petition filed by the claimants for grant of compensation on account of death of Navjot Singh in a motor vehicular accident, stands allowed. The claim was contested by the owner and the driver, as well as the Insurance company. The plea taken by the appellant / Insurance company was that it was not liable to indemnify the insured, for the reason that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- FAO No. 331 of 2010 2 “1. Whether Navjot Singh had died due to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident dated 25.11.2007 at about 11.30 a.m. near PWD rest house Siswan Road Kurali caused by respondent No.1 while driving truck bearing No. HP-12-3801 rashly and negligently ? OPP 2. Whether respondent No.1-driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident? If so, its effect? OPP 3. Is the petition not maintainable as alleged ? OPR 4. Whether the claimants are the legal representatives of deceased Navjot Singh and are entitled to get compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?OPP 5. Relief.” The learned Tribunal, decided issue No.2 against the appellant by recording as under :- “10. The onus to prove this issue was upon respondent No.3. However, no evidence has been led by respondent No.3 in order to show that respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective DL at the time of accident in question. The copy of DL. of respondent No.1 has been produced on record as Ex. R-1. As such, this issue is decided against respondent No.3.” The learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the impugned part of award fixing the liability on the Insurance company, is liable to be set aside, as the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a FAO No. 331 of 2010 3 valid driving licence at the time of accident. There was, thus, violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant can not be accepted, as appellant failed to lead any evidence in support of this plea, as would be clear from the findings of learned Tribunal on issue No.2. No merit. Dismissed. 28.1.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE