FAO No.4642 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4642 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.12.2011 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant Versus Raj Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms.Sonal Datta, Advocate for Mr.VM Gupta, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Roopak Bansal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 6 and 7. ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal for setting aside the impugned Award dated 27.3.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide which the claim petition was allowed and the appellant insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation amount. The brief facts of the case are that on 2.11.2006, at about 7.30 a.m., Sheodan (since deceased) was walking towards his fields alongside the road. Meanwhile, a motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ- 02SC-0302, being driven by respondent No.6, in a rash, negligent and zig-zag manner, came from behind and hit Sheodan. As a result of which, he had fallen on the road and sustained fatal injuries. He was rushed to the General Hospital, FAO No.4642 of 2010 2 Rewari and thereafter, PGIMS, Rohtak. But on the way to Rohtak, he succumbed to his injuries. An FIR No.158 dated 2.11.2006, under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Bawal. The claimants, who were the legal representatives, filed the claim petition. The Driver and the owner of the offending motorcycle filed a joint written statement, whereas the Insurance Company filed a separate written statement. From the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal settled the following issues:- 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 2.11.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No.RJ-02SC-0302 on the part of respondent No.1 resulting into death of Sheodan?OPP. 2. If issue no.1 is proved, what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding the valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident?OPR 4. Relief. In their support, the claimants examined Bir Singh PW1 and Raj Kumar PW2 and by tendering documents closed their evidence. To defeat the claim, the appellant, (Insurance Company) alongwith the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle examined FAO No.4642 of 2010 3 Braham Parkash, Licence Clerk, SDM Office, Rewari as RW1, Satish Kumar Licence Clerk, Office of Licensing Authority, Rewari as RW3, Ratti Ram (driver of the offending vehicle) and after tendering documents, closed their evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and analysing the exhibited record, the learned Tribunal decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimant- respondent Nos. 1 to 5, and against the appellant including the owner and driver i.e. respondent Nos.6 and 7. Issue No.2 was also decided in favour of the claimants and an amount of `60,000/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal. Issue No.3 decided against the appellant, as the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and as such, the Insurance Company-appellant was held liable to pay the compensation amount. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the award, the appellant- Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. From the perusal of the record, it emerges that as from the statement of RW-1 Braham Parkash, licence Clerk, office of Sub Division Magistrate at Rewari, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. The statement of the Braham Parkash is reproduced as under:- “.. It is correct that as per the record the aforesaid driving licence was valid for the period upto 9.10.2002 for driving scooter, motorcycle, car and Jeep only. FAO No.4642 of 2010 4 Thereafter, the aforesaid person was authorised to driver L.T.V. As added with effect from 15.11.2002 to 14.11.2005. Thereafter, the said driving licence was further got renewed from 19.11.2007 to 9.10.2008. This aforesaid driving licence had not been got renewed today after 9.10.2008. It is correct that Rati Ram was having a driving licence upto 14.11.2005 and thereafter, he got driving licence renewed on 19.11.2007. In this way, the aforesaid person was not having a driving licence for the period 15.11.2005 to 18.11.2007 for driving any category of motor vehicle. The driving licence of L.T.V. i.e. light transport vehicle is renewed only for a period of three years as a maximum limit.” The accident caused on 2.11.2006. In view of the above statement and there being no contrary record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the driver of the offending was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Ex.RX is the Insurance Policy. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The Insurance Company is granted recovery rights to recover the amount from respondent Nos.6 and 7, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. 23.12.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE