[238] Avdesh Sin Partap Cha Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] Award pas whereby In compensati Motor Veh IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA FAO-8476 Date of De sh Singh and another versu p Chand Sahoo and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Ms. Nidhi Dahiya, Advocate f Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Driver and owner of the insu rd passed by the learned Motor Acci eby Insurance Company has been ensation to the claimants in a petitio r Vehicles Act, 1988, observing as u “18. Onus to prove these issu respondent no.3. The respondent to rebut the case of the petitione respondents to pay the amount respondent no.1 holds valid RC Ex.PW2/2 & Ex. RX and permit has failed to produce his DL. vehicle in question without DL condition of Insurance Policy Ex Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Laxmi where it was held that in case it driven by driver who was either T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 8476-2018 (O&M) of Decision : 02.02.2026 …Appellants ersus ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN ocate for the appellants. ocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. vocate for respondent No.3-Ins. Co. e insured vehicle are in appeal again r Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridaba been absolved of its liability to pa petition filed under Section 166 of th g as under:- issues was on the insurance compan dent no.3 has not adduced any eviden tioner. With regard to the liability of t unt of compensation, it is seen that t RC Ex. PW2/3 and copy of Insurance rmit is Ex. PW2/1. The respondent no DL. The respondent no.1 was drivin t DL which is violation of terms an y Ex.RX. Reliance is placed on Nation axminarain Dutt, 2007(4) SCALE 3 se it is found that offending vehicle w her holding no licence or a fake licenc against ridabad, to pay 6 of the pany, idence of the at the nce is t no.1 riving and tional E 36, le was cence, RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.18 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-8476-2018 (O&M) -2- then it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of policy and in that circumstance, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company. Since, the respondent no.1 had failed to produce DL on file and adverse inference can be drawn that the respondent no.1 was not holding any licence at the time of accident, which is violation of term and condition of the insurance policy.” [2] Counsel for the appellants has referred to statement of PW- 2/Babita, Additional Ahlmad from the Court of JMIC, Faridabad, who was examined before the Tribunal. She submits that as per her statement, original license possessed by the driver valid w.e.f. 11.02.2011 to 19.04.2018 issued by the Licensing Authority, Mainpuri, Utter Pardesh, was taken in possession by Police. Copy thereof was kept in the records of the Trial Court. The same was tendered in evidence as PW2/4 by the official witness. Still the Tribunal ignored the vital piece of evidence and absolved the Insurance Company of its liability, holding that the appellants failed to prove the driving license and thus insured was in the breach of the contract of insurance. She submits that copy of driving license of appellant No.1 was tendered in evidence by claimants themselves as Exhibit PW-1/18. No objection was raised by the Insurance Company at the time the document was tendered in evidence. She thus submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability. [3] Taking cognizance of the aforesaid assertions, this Court on 04.04.2019 passed the following order:- “ Learned counsel for the appellants inter alia contends that through the impugned award the Tribunal has fastened the liability RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.18 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-8476-2018 (O&M) -3- of the awarded compensation upon the appellant only on the ground that appellant No.1-driver had failed to produce his driving licence. However, photocopies of the driving licence were on the record as Exhibits PW-1/18 and PW-2/4, which the Tribunal wrongly ignored. Learned counsel for the respondents acknowledges the fact that photocopies of the driving licence of appellant No.1 were on the record of the Tribunal but since no finding on the genuineness thereof has been returned by the Tribunal, he prays for and is granted time to submit a report after verifying its authenticity/genuineness. Adjourned to 18.07.2019” [4] Mr. Kodan, counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company, submits that in compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the genuineness of the license has been verified and the same is not disputed. [5] In view thereof, this Court finds that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. Insurance Company is held to be jointly and severally liable along with the appellants to pay compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. [6] The appeal is allowed to the accordingly. [7] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 02.02.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.18 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document