FAO No. 2011 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2011 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision 27.7.2011 Pankaj Mahajan Appellant v. Anita & Others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Sanjay Tangri,Advocate for the appellant Mr.Raja B.S.Jain,Advocate for respondent No.9 .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J C.M.No. 10306- CII of 2009 C.M. is allowed. Delay of 16 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned, subject to all just exceptions. Main appeal This appeal has been filed by the appellant-owner against the Award dated 30.10.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Adhoc),Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur (for short the Tribunal). Brief facts of the case are that at about 3.p.m on 16.9.2005, Tirath Ram (deceased) alongwith Jatinder Kumar were relaxing after completing the painting work. They were sitting at the edge of street, in village Udhipur, Police Station, Dinanagar. A Tata Sumo, bearing registration No. PB-01-4751 (offending vehicle), driven by driver, Balwinder Singh, respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent manner, hit Tirath Ram. He sustained multiple injuries and was taken to Chauhan Hospital, Dina Nagar. He was referred to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur but FAO No. 2011 of 2009 2 succumbed to his injuries. FIR No. 141 dated 17.9.2005, under sections 304-A/279 IPC was registered at Police Station, Dinanagar and challan was presented in the Court. The claimants i.e. wife, widowed mother and five minor daughters of the deceased, filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 6 lacs on account of death of Tirath Ram in the motor vehicular accident. On notice, respondent No. 1 denied the alleged accident. Respondent No.2 also denied the occurrence of such accident and pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd.(for short the Insurance Company) and the compensation, if any, was to be paid by the Insurance Company. Respondent No.3 filed written statement with preliminary objection that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence and that respondent No.2 did not produce the valid permit and fitness certificate of the offending vehicle. The vehicle was being run without any permit and as such, Insurance Company was not liable. The Ld. Tribunal, after examining the witnesses and the evidence produced on record, observed that the deceased died in the accident, caused by respondent No.1 Balwinder Singh, while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, Respondents No. 1 & 2 were held liable to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally. So far as the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation is concerned, the Ld. Tribunal observed that no doubt the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company at the time of alleged accident but as per the latest law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex FAO No. 2011 of 2009 3 Court, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation, if it is found that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time. In the instant case, in order to rebut the contention of the Insurance Company to the effect that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence, respondent No.1, i.e. the driver of the offending vehicle produced two documents, Ex.R4 and Ex.R5. Ex. R-4 is a copy of the driving licence whereas Ex.R5 is a copy of the verification report, purportedly issued by the concerned Licensing Authority. Another very important document brought on record was Ex.R7 which is the 2nd verification report wherein the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Baramulla (J&K) submitted that driving licence No. 98231 BKMR, of which Ex.R4 is copy, was neither issued by his office nor was the same ever renewed from his office. Ex.R7 is the most relevant document to arrive at the conclusion that no reliance can be placed on Ex.R4 and Ex.R5. In the face of categoric assertion by the competent authority that the driving licence in question was never issued or renewed by his office, stand of respondent No.1 looses all grounds. Another reason to doubt the authenticity of Ex.R4 and Ex.R5 is the fact that original of neither the driving licence nor the verification report was produced before the Tribunal for its visual appreciation even after Ex.R7 had been produced to counter the authenticity of Ex.R4. The Ld. Tribunal, placed reliance on New India Assurance Company v. Prabhu Singh, 2008(1) Apex Court Judgments,140, wherein it has been held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation, as it was proved that the driver was not holding a valid FAO No. 2011 of 2009 4 driving licence, at the time of accident. It was further observed that in the case in hand, when the driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, the Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the claimants. However, respondent No.1 being the driver and respondent No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle are liable to compensate the claimants. The Tribunal after considering the evidence produced on record and examining the witnesses, came to the conclusion that at the time of death, the age of the deceased was 37 years, and the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 2000/-p.m. ( Rs. 24,000 per annum). The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15 in the present case keeping in view the age of the deceased and calculated the total amount of compensation at Rs. 3,65,000 (including Rs. 5,000/- as funeral expenses) and awarded the same to the claimants i.e the wife,widowed mother and five minor daughters of the deceased Tirath Ram. The Tribunal has rightly held both the driver and owner of the offending vehicle to be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in the Award dated 30.10.2008 passed by the Ld. Tribunal. The appeal of appellant-owner fails and is dismissed. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 27.7.2011 ms