ORDER
Verma, J.
(1). The present Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the registered owners of the vehicle Tractor No. RJ-02/0138 challenging the award dated 5.5.99 passed by Molor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behror District Alwar in MACT case No. 138/93 whereby the claimants have been awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/-on account of death of Mulla Ram in the accident occurred on 23.2.93 and only the owners of the tractor were held liable to pay the compensation and the Insurance Company was exonerated.
(2). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as a matter of fact they had sold the tractor to respondent No. 2 Prabhat before the accident and the said Prabhat had employed respondent No.3 Suresh Chand as driver of the tractor, who was not holding valid licence or the tractor was carrying passengers. The Tribunal had exonerated the Insurance company on the ground that the driver of the tractor was not holding valid licence.
(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Sohan Lal Passi vs. P. Sesh Reddu and others (1), wherein the owner of the vehicle had authorised the driver who was
having valid licence to drive the vehicle. The Driver had allowed the cleaner to drive the vehicle, who was not having any driving licence. It was held that the owner of the vehicle had appointed the authorised driver, but without consent of the owner, the driver had handed over the vehicle to unlicensed person and in such circumstances it cannot be held that the insurer had not fulfilled the condition of policy by allowing a person who was not having a valid liceuce to driver the vehicle.
(4). Learned counsel for the appellant also relies on judgment in case of New
India Insurance vs. Satpal.
(5). Counsel for the appellant also relied on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of 1999 ACJ 1077 (2), on the point that once the vehicle is insured the liability of Insurance Company is coextensive with that of the owner of the vehicle in respect of No Fault Liability.
(6). In this very case it was held that the defences available to Insurance company that owner entrusted the vehicle to a person who was holding a licence but the same was found to be fake during enquiry before the Tribunal. It was observed that it is beyond anybody’s comprehension that the owner should first verify the genuineness of the licence with the. concerned authorises before entrusting the vehicle to the driver: owner had taken reasonable steps, acted bonafide and discharged his statutory obligation. Therefore the insurance company was liable to pay compensation.
(7). To the similar fact is the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in case of Sukh Dev vs. Uhagwati Devi and others (3), wherein the judgment in case of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan (4), has been relied upon.
(8). Per contra, counsel for respondents submits that none of the authorities cited by the counsel for appellant is applicable in the present case. The inference is to be drawn against the appellant for the reason that the appellant had not appeared before the Tribunal and had been proceeded exparte. He had not led any evidence whatsoever in regard to selling of the vehicle to respondent No.2 or to the effect that the driver was duly licensed person, he relies on a judgment in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd, vs. Gian Chand and others (5).
(9). After hearing counsel for parties I am of the opinion that the contention of respondent has no force. It has been found by the Tribunal that the licence being held by the Driver was not a valid licence and was a fake one. As a matter of fact, after filing of the written statement, the appellant had not taken part in the proceedings of Tribunal, and therefore, in such situation the judgment being quotted by counsel for respondent does not assist him in any manner. Rather the case of Gian Chand & others (supra) is wholly inapplicable to the facts of present case. Until and unless the owner appears in witness box to justify his action of handing over the vehicle to a person having genuine licence, he cannot be allowed to say subsequently when the Tribunal ultimately decides the case against him that he had no knowledge to the effect that licence was not genuine or was fake one. No such evidence has been produced by the appellant. Situation would have been otherwise if any of the appellant would have appeared in witness box, therefore this contention of appellant is not accepted.
(10). No evidence, as discussed above, was produced by the appellant that he had already transferred the said truck to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 had died. Admittedly the appellants were registered owner of the truck, in such circumstances the claim application could only be filed against the registered owner. Until and unless the registered owner proves before the Tribunal that vehicle had been transferred to any third person, when no evidence has been led in this regard, he is liable to remain liable to pay compensation. No illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in holding that only the registered owner i.e. appellants are liable to pay compensation.
(11). With the above observations, the Misc. Appeal is dismissed.