FAO-2752 IN THE HIG 224 M/s Guru Ri Dalbir Kaur CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. Truck bearin dated 27.07. Amritsar (fo 15.05.2009 whereby an claimant/resp 2. amount of c respondent reasons cont follows:- 52-2016 (O&M) -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA FAO Date o uru Rice Mills Versus Kaur and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH None for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate for respondent No. 3-Insurance I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been fil bearing registration No. PJA-9565 27.07.2010 passed by the learned Mot (for short- ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC 2009 filed under Section 163-A of th by an amount of ₹2,12,000/- had been nt/respondent No. 1. However, vide impugned Awar t of compensation has been affixed u dent No. 4-Dalbir Singh/driver of s contained in para No. 15 of the imp “15. No doubt, respondent No offending vehicle i.e. Truck No ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2752-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.04.2026 .… Appellant .... Respondents NIDHI GUPTA rance Company. een filed by the owner of offending laying challenge to the Award d Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, n MAC Case No. 51 of 2009 dated of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, d been awarded as compensation to Award liability to pay the aforesaid fixed upon the appellant/owner and er of the offending truck for the e impugned Award, which reads as t No. 1 Dalbir Singh, driver of the No. PJA-9565 appeared as PW2 ding ard nal, ated , n to said and the s as he 2 RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.01 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2752 3. co-ordinate 52-2016 (O&M) -2- and deposed that he was holdin time of accident, which is Ma license was got verified from th same was found to be fake and of DTO, Amristar, in this reg proved by RW1 Jatinder Singh, who produced the record re respondent No. Dalbir Singh an A was not issued by their depa genuine. Therefore, I hold th Singh was not having valid an drive the truck at the tim respondent No. 3 Insurance C amount so paid to the claima vehicle i.e., respondent No. 2.” On 17.11.2023, following or inate Bench of this Court:- CM-7301-CII-2019 1. The applicant/appellant order 41 Rule 27 read with permission to place on reco certificate dated 13.06.2016 An Transport Officer, Amritsar. T applicant pointed out that the M/s Guru Rice Mills VPO Chhi registered owner of truck No. Singh was holding a valid and time of accident. However, w award it was concluded that th Dalbir Singh was not holding license at the time of accident, t was entitled to recover the am claimant No.1 from insured re this the present appeal was filed It is pointed out tha application before District T seeking verification of driv Amritsar dated 14.09.1993 and Transport Officer, Amritsar da was having a valid and effecti the recovery rights have been the insurance company. 2. The application is oppos As per the learned counsel driving license was fake. The A Punjab was requested that Amritsar should appear in pe There is reply in the shape of a olding valid driving license at the s Mark A, but when this driving m the office D.T.O. Amritsar, the and forged document. The report regard is Ex. R1, which is duly ngh, Clerk, DTO Office, Amritsar, d relating to driving license of gh and held that this license Mark department and the license is not d that respondent No. 1 Dalbir d and effective driving license to time of accident. Resultantly, ce Co., is entitled to recover the aimants from the Insured of the 2.” order has been passed by a llant has filed application under with Section 151 CPC seeking record additional document i.e. 6 Annexure P-5 issued by District ar. The learned counsel for the t the present appellant/applicant Chhiddan, District Amritsar is the No.PJA-9565. The driver Dalbir and effective driving license at the er, while passing the impugned at the driver of offending vehicle ing a valid and effective driving ent, therefore, the respondent No.3 amount of award so paid to the d respondent No.2. As a result of filed. that Dalbir Singh had filed ict Transport Officer, Amritsar driving license No.3192/DTO and as per the report of District r dated 13.06.2016, Dalbir Singh fective driving license. Therefore, een wrongly granted in favour of pposed by the insurance company. sel for insurance company, the he Additional Advocate General, hat District Transport Officer, n person to clarify the position. of affidavit filed by Angrej Singh, he ng he ort ly ar, of rk ot ir to ly, he he y a er ng .e. ict he nt he bir he ed cle ng .3 he of ed ar O ict gh re, of y. he al, er, n. h, RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.01 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2752 4. forwarded by received and 52-2016 (O&M) -3- Licensing Authority, Amritsar, a pertaining to this driving lice office. 3. Today during the cours counsel for the applicant ha photostat copy of letter written District Transport Officer, A another report dated 17.07.20 license No.3192/DTO, Amritsar 4. I have considered the fa through the award dated 27. learned MACT, Amritsar. The c Section 163-A of Motor V compensation. As per para insurance company took pre driver of the truck i.e. responde holding a valid and effective d alleged accident. However, n point. The learned Tribunal has para No.15 of the award date verification reports referred a Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC as w report dated 17.07.2015 it i Tribunal gives specific repor driving license of the driver of specific issue and to give concerned to lead their respect submit the report within a perio order be sent to the success Accident Claims Tribunal, Adjourned to 06.02.2024 for aw FAO-2752-2016(O&M) Adjourned to 06.02.2024 Pursuant thereto, report from rded by the learned District and Sessio ed and the relevant para No. 8 thereof “8. The onus to prove issue No.1 (driver) was holding a leg licence at the time of accident w order to discharge their onu examined Gurnam Singh, Senio RTO, Amritsar as RW1, who pr copy of report as Ex.R1 showin to renewal of driving licence o driving licence No. 3192 dated mention here that as per Award licence of driver Dalbir Sin sar, according to which the record license is not available in their ourse of arguments, the learned t has placed on record another tten in Punjabi by Dalbir Singh to r, Amritsar in which there is 7.2015 pertaining to the driving itsar. e factual position and have gone 27.07.2010 passed by the then The claim petition was filed under r Vehicle Act for grant of ara No.4 of the judgment, the preliminary objection that the ondent No.1-Dalbir Singh was not ive driving license at the time of r, no issue was framed on this l has dealt with this controversy in dated 27.07.2010. In the light of ed along with application under as well as other application with it is required that the learned eport regarding the validity of r of offending vehicle by framing ive opportunity to the parties pective evidence on the same and period of two months. Copy of this ccessor court of learned Motor al, Amritsar for compliance. r awaiting the report. 024.” from the learned Tribunal duly Sessions Judge, Amritsar, has been ereof, reads as under:- sue as to whether the respondent a legal, valid and effective driving ent was upon the owner/driver. In onus, respondents-owner/driver Senior Assistant from the office of o proved on record attested photo owing relevant entries with regard ce of driver Dalbir Singh, having ated 14.9.1993. It is pertinent to ward dated 27.7.2010, the driving ingh was found fake as per rd eir ed er to is ng ne en er of he he ot of his in of er ith ed of ng ies nd is tor ce. duly een nt ng In er of to rd to ng er RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.01 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2752 5. and responde on record th valid driving 52-2016 (O&M) -4- verification report Ex.R1. In Punjab and Haryana, plea of driver Dalbir Singh was holdin licence at the time of accident. and driver-Dalbir Singh were driving licence of driver Dalbi However, the respondents-own produce or prove on record driver. Only report Ex.R1 as proved, but the fact remains tha renewal of said driving licence as well as original driving lic record. In his cross examinatio admitted that he has not brough to the said driving licence N 14.9.1993 along with its all re further cross examination, th owner/driver has stated tha possession of Gurnam Singh, C the fact remains that it is a pu expected that the same was particular official. After death record relating to driving lice maintained by some other offi driving licence of driver-Dal placed nor proved on record a by summoning concerned offi from the office of DTO, Amritsa the driving licence by the owne on file from which it could be was holding a valid and effecti of accident. Thus, keeping i circumstances, I am of the con of evidence, respondents-owne on record that driver Dalbir S valid driving licence at the ti concluded that respondent D holding a legal, valid and effect of accident. Thus, issue as ment against the owner/driver. The report is submitted a From the above report, it is c spondent No. 4/driver of the offending ord that respondent No. 4/Dalbir Sin riving licence at the time of accident. In the Hon'ble High Court of of the appellant/owner was that lding a valid and effective driving ent. Thus, owner-Guru Rice Mills ere duty bound to prove original albir Singh before this Tribunal. owner and driver have failed to cord original driving licence of 1 as mentioned above has been s that original record of entries of ence showing in the report Ex.R1 licence has not been proved on nation, RW1 Gurnam Kumar has ought the original record relating ce No.3192/DTO Amritsar dated renewal entries. Though in his , the said witness examined by that original record was in gh, Clerk who has since died, but a public record and it cannot be was lying in the custody of a eath of Gurnam Singh Clerk, the licences/renewal must have been official. However, said original Dalbir Singh has neither been rd along with its renewal entries official/original relevant record ritsar. As mentioned earlier, even owner/driver has not been proved be held that driver Dalbir Singh ffective driving licence at the time g in view all these facts and considered opinion that for want wner/driver have failed to prove ir Singh was holding a legal and he time of accident. Hence, it is t Dalbir Singh(driver) was not ffective driving licence at the time mentioned in para No.4 is decided ed accordingly please.” it is clear that the appellant/owner fending vehicle have failed to prove ir Singh was holding a legal and ident. of at ng lls al. to of en of R1 on as ng ed his by ut be a he en al en ies rd en ed gh me nd nt ve nd is ot me ed ner rove and RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.01 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2752 6. Company al have been g appellant/ ow driver of the the date of a 7. hearing i.e. unrepresente directed to i Office report for the appe counsel has taken by the been receive time’. 8. Tribunal, the 9. 30.04.2026 rishu 52-2016 (O&M) -5- Learned counsel appearing for also submits that vide Award imp been granted to the respondent-Insu ant/ owner and respondent No. 4 drive of the offending truck was not holdi te of accident. Perusal of order-sheet(s) reveal g i.e. 06.02.2024 and 08.08.2025 esented. On the last date of hearing d to inform learned counsel for the a report dated 29.04.2025 shows that no e appellant has been received back el has requested that notice be issued the client; whereafter notice was iss eceived back unserved with the report In view of the afore-noted fac al, the instant appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable ng for respondent No. 3-Insurance rd impugned herein recovery rights Insurance Company against the driver of the offending truck as the t holding a valid driving licence on reveal(s) that on the last 02 dates of 8.2025, the appellant had gone aring i.e. 08.08.2025, Registry was r the appellant about the date fixed. notice issued to learned counsel back with the report that learned ssued to the party as brief has been was issued to the appellant which as report that ‘Mill is locked since long ted facts and report of the learned any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ance ghts the s the e on s of one was xed. nsel rned been h as ng rned RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.01 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.