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