FAO No.4893 of 2007 - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.4893 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: 10.08.2009 **** The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. . . . . Appellant VS. Smt. Kavita & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG **** Present: Mr. V.K. Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL) This is insurer’s appeal challenging the award of the Tribunal which has granted compensation to the claimants on account of death of one Sanjay caused due to motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. In this case, an accident had taken place on 17th January, 2006 and as per the findings of the Tribunal Sanjay s/o Inder Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in the said accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-55A/9772 which was a heavy transport vehicle driven by respondent No.1. The only argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. He has further argued that there is evidence on record to establish that FAO No.4893 of 2007 - 2 – the original driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was not issued by the competent authority. I have perused the record of the appellant and heard the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that entry regarding heavy transport vehicle was added in the driving licence No.715/R/2001 on 11.2.2003 vide entry No.285/R/2003 which was valid upto 10.02.2006. The appellant has not disputed the factum of genuineness of this entry in the record. It is also not in dispute that the original licence was renewed validly. For the sake of arguments if it is presumed that the driving licence Exhibit P/3-R3 was originally a fake document even in view of the case law National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others 2004 Accidents Claims Tribunal Claims Journal 1, the insurance company cannot absolve itself from the liability to indemnify the insured on the ground of fake driving licence. In the present case, the following observations of Tribunal are very relevant:- “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties, I find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company for the reasons recorded hereinafter. The insurance company has examined Makhan Lal, Assistant Regional Transport Authority, Rewari as RW2 who categorically deposed that the driving licence No.37735/95 originally issued by the FAO No.4893 of 2007 - 3 – Licensing Authority, Una was renewed by their office from 22.2.2001 to 21.2.2004 vide entry No.715/R/2001 dated 22.2.2001. He further deposed that an entry regarding Heavy Transport vehicle was made in the driving licence No.715/R/2001 on 11.2.2003 vide entry No.285/R/2003 and the driving licence was valid upto 10.2.2006. The true copies of both the entries No.715 and 285 are Exhibits R1 and R2 respectively. He, in his cross-examination, deposed that before renewing the driving licence, ‘No Objection Certificate’ was sought from the Issuing Licensing Authority and after nothing was heard from them within thirty days that the concerned Licensing Authority had not issued a valid driving licence, renewal was made. The ‘No Objection Certificate’ was sought through a registered AD letter but no objection was raised by the Licensing Authority, Una that the driving licence No.37735/95 was not issued by that authority. He further, explained that the practice in their licensing authority was to renew the driving licence in which no objection had been raised by the original issuing licensing authority. He explained that the renewal of the driving licence is meant that the holder was having an authorized and legal authorization to drive the stipulated vehicles. He also admitted that ‘No Objection’ was raised by the original Licensing Authority, Una regarding the genuineness of the driving licence No.37735/95. As regards the testimony of Sanjay, the insurance company cannot derive any benefit from his statement as well. FAO No.4893 of 2007 - 4 – Sanjay, RW1 in his testimony before the Court that the driving licence No.37735/95 was not issued to the respondent No.1 on 8.2.2001 but he failed to depose as to whether it was issued to him in the year 1995 or not because apparently, it is evident from the evidence led by the respondent No.3 that the driving licence was originally issued in the year 1995 and it was renewed for the first time on 22.2.2001. Had the driving licence been issued on 8.2.2001, there was no need of its renewal in the same month on 22.2.2001. Thus the insurance company has failed to discharge the onus.” Thus, I find no merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and no fault can be found with the impugned award. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 10.08.2009 shonkar