ORDER
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the owner of the truck involved in the accident against the claimant- Phooli Devi, who is respondent No. 1 in this case; respondent No. 2 is driver of the truck and respondent No. 3 is the insurer of the truck. The learned Tribunal has by its impugned judgment awarded compensation to the claimant-respondent. However, it absolved the insurance Company, and the appellant and respondent No. 2 were held liable to pay the compensation. Hence this appeal is filed by the owner of the truck.
2. The only argument advanced before me is regarding liability of the Insurance Company. Counsel for the appellant argued that the insurance company is liable to pay the amount as it has not proved that the vehicle was not driven by driver holding a valid driving licence. The counsel for the respondent has argued that the driver was not having a driving licence and the insurance company has discharged the burden by proving its certificate to that effect. The certificate is Ex.R-1 on record. It reads as under:-
“Certificate
According to our office record the licence in r/o Shri Gurnek Singh s/o Shri Lai Singh r/o Sabazi Mandi Chamba, dated 24.12.1996 has not been issued by this Office.
Sd/-
Registering and Licensing Authority,
Chamba (H.P.)”
3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the certificate cannot be taken into account. He has cited before me the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Dalbir Singh and Ors., (1997-3)117 P.L.R. 755. In that case the defence was also regarding validity of the licence and it was not the case in defence that the licence was forged. The Licensing Authority in that case stated that there was no entry in the register with respect to the issuance of the licence. It further considered therein whether the seal and signature on the driving licence were forged and the register relating to issuance of licence was not produced in the Court. In that case nothing was said by RW-2 with respect to the licence fee and the mere absence of the entry in the register of licensees, held did not prove that the appellant had forged the licence.
4. Another case cited before me is of National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Bala Devi and Ors., (1997-2)116 P.L.R. 269. In that case it has been held that MACT should have summoned some official of the office of Regional Transport Authority and put it to him whether driving licence bearing the number was issued to the driver. In that case RW3 had stated that he visited the office of the Licensing Authority and found that no driving licence was ever issued to the driver. The Division Bench of this Court while allowing the appeal remanded the case to the Tribunal directing it to record the evidence on the point.
5. In the present case, except producing Ex.R-1, there is no such evidence led by the insurance company to show that the driver, did not hold the valid driving licence. Actually, burden of proof that the driver was not holding the valid driving licence, is decided by the Supreme court in the case of Narcinva V. Kamat and Anr v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and Ors., 1985 A.C.J. 397. In view of the case of Narcinva v. Kamat and another (supra), the counsel for the insurance company in the alternative argued that the case may be remanded. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that he has no objection in the case being remanded.
6. This being the position, I find it proper to send the case back to the Tribunal for permitting the insurance company to lead evidence and to permit the other parties to lead evidence in rebuttal, if any.
7. As a result, the proceedings of this appeal are at present stayed and the record of the trial Court is ordered to be sent back to the Tribunal for recording evidence, as suggested above. The Tribunal shall complete the recording of the evidence within a period of two months of the date of receipt of the record by it and send the record back along with the additional evidence to this Court within the above-mentioned period.
8. After the record and additional evidence is received, the hearing of this appeal shall proceed further.