F. A. O. No.563 of 1996. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. F.A.O.No.563 of 1996. Date of decision:30-1-2008 National Insurance Company Limited. ...Appellant. Versus Brahmo Devi and others. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. Ravinder Singh was killed in a vehicular accident on 5.4.1993 in the area of village Silana. His parents filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.five lacs from the driver, owner and insurer of tractor of HNS-2888 which was involved in the accident resulting in the death of said Ravinder Singh. The facts as have emerged from the pleadings are that F. A. O. No.563 of 1996. -2- on 5.4.1993Ravinder Singh deceased was driving jeep No.DL-2CC- 4701 on Sisana-Farmana road. The jeep was proceeding towards village Farmana at a normal speed and was being driven on the left side of the road. When the jeep reached near the point from where another road branched off towards village Gorar, tractor bearing registration No.HNS-2888, driven by respondent No.1 Tek Chand in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction. The tractor banged into the jeep as a result of which Ravinder Singh was thrown away on the Kacha berm of the road. Ravinder Singh was being taken to Civil Hospital, Sonepat when he succumbed to his injuries. Tractor in question was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The claimants pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month from his employment as a driver and after his death, the claimants had no source of income and became destitutes. The petition was resisted by the respondents. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, in their written statement, controverted the averments made by the claimants. They denied that the respondent No.1 was driving the tractor rashly and negligently. According to them, respondent No.1 accompanied by two labourers was going from village Farmana on tractor bearing registration No.HNS-2888. When the tractor reached a point from where a road F. A. O. No.563 of 1996. -3- branched off towards village Gorar, the jeep in question which was being driven by Rajpal son of Chet Ram came from the opposite direction. Respondent No.1 gave dipper to the jeep driver which was answered by the jeep driver. Respondent No.1 also gave indication that he was turning towards village Gorar. Instead of going towards village Gorar, the jeep driver suddenly changed his mind and proceeded ahead towards village Farmana. The respondent No.1 tried his level best to avoid the accident but the rear portion of the jeep struck against the tractor. Ravinder Singh was sitting by the right side of Rajpal who was driving the jeep. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by Rajpal. It was denied that Rajpal was employed as jeep driver and was getting Rs.2,000/- per month as wages. It was also pleaded that the tractor was insured with National Insurance Company Limited, Sonepat, respondent No.3 with effect from 25.9.1992 to 24.9.1992. Respondent No.3, Insurance Company also contested the claim of the claimants. They also denied rash and negligent driving of the tractor by respondent No.1. It was also averred that respondent No.1 was not holding any effective driving licence at the time of accident and,therefore, respondent No.3 was not liable to pay any compensation. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: F. A. O. No.563 of 1996. -4- 1.Whether Tek Chand,respondent No.1 was driving his tractor No.HNS-2888 in a rash and negligent manner as on 5.4.1993 in the area of village Silana and thereby caused the accident in dispute, resulting into the death of Ravinder Singh?OPP. 2.If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation.If so, to what amount and from whom?OPP. 3.Whether Tek Chand, respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident?OPR. 4.Relief. Under issue No.1, it was held by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat vide award dated 26.9.1995 that Tek Chand respondent had driven tractor No.HNS-2888 in a rash and negligent manner on 5.4.1993 in the area of village Silana resulting in the death of Ravinder Singh. Therefore, issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Under issue Nos.2 and 3, the monthly dependency was worked out to be Rs.1,300/- and by applying a multiplier of 10, the claimants were held entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,56,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing the petition till actual realization. All the respondents were also held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants jointly and severally. F. A. O. No.563 of 1996. -5- Feeling dis-satisfied with the above-said award, the National Insurance Company has directed the present appeal. I have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record of the case. Mr. Arora, Advocate for the Insurance Company has assailed the finding on issue No.3 only. It is submitted that Tek Chand, respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence and as such there is violation of the provisions of the policy. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount to the claimants. In the alternative, a prayer has been made for allowing the Insurance Company to recover the amount from respondent No.2. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Tek Chand has deposed that he was having a driving licence, Exhibit R-1, issued to him by the Licensing Authority in the year 1989, valid upto 15.10.1991. Vidya Sagar, RW3 has proved the fact that licence, Exhibit R1 is a fake document. RW2 Hem Chander, Licence Clerk has proved the factum that according to the record of the office of Licensing Authority, Sonepat, Tek Chand son of Shri Kanshi Ram, was issued a learner's licence for driving scooters, motor cycles, cars and jeeps on 23.12.1991 an that was valid upto 22.6.1992. Tek Chand was not having a valid licence on the day of accident. So, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. I have considered the said submission but do not find any F. A. O. No.563 of 1996. -6- force in that submission. Vidya Sagar was the Surveyor in the Insurance Company and he has deposed about licence No.91890472 dated 14.9.1989. The licence produced by Tek Chand bears number 91090472. So, Vidya Sagar has not stated anything about the validity of licence, Exhibit R1.The learned Tribunal has rightly ignored his statement. The statement of RW2 Hem Chander, Licence Clerk also does not help the Insurance Company as observed by the learned Tribunal as Insurance Company has failed to prove the fact that the record relating to Tek Chand produced by this witness relates to respondent Tek Chand. No other point has been urged before me. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. January 30 ,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge