FAO-1324-2019 (O&M) 247 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jagtar Singh and Another National Insurance Co. Ltd and Others CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mr. Sahil Mehra, Advocate for Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate for the appellants. NIDHI GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been filed Truck bearing registration No.PB ‘offending vehicle’) laying challenge to the Award dated 06.09.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana ( Tribunal”) whereby claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents No.2 and 3 herein, has been allowed and compensation of Rs.5,29,000/ the claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal upon appraisal of the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that deceased Prem Pal had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took negligent driving of the offending truck by appellant No.1, owned by appellant No.2, and insured by respondent No.1. The two claimants are the 52 widow and 29-year 2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- FAO Date of Decision : 21.04.202 and Another VERSUS National Insurance Co. Ltd and Others CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Sahil Mehra, Advocate for Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate for the appellants. -.- NIDHI GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been filed Truck bearing registration No.PB-10CG-4366 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) laying challenge to the Award dated 06.09.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana ( Tribunal”) whereby claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents No.2 and 3 herein, has been allowed and compensation of Rs.5,29,000/ Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal upon appraisal of the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that deceased Prem Pal had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 04.03.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by appellant No.1, owned by appellant No.2, and insured by respondent No.1. The two claimants are the 52 year-old daughter of deceased Prem Pal, who wa -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1324-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.04.2026 ....Appellants ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate for the appellants. The present appeal has been filed by the driver and owner of the 4366 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) laying challenge to the Award dated 06.09.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter “the learned Tribunal”) whereby claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents No.2 and 3 herein, has been allowed and compensation of Rs.5,29,000/- has been awarded to Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal upon appraisal of the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that deceased Prem Pal had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a place on 04.03.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by appellant No.1, owned by appellant No.2, and insured by respondent No.1. The two claimants are the 52-year- old daughter of deceased Prem Pal, who was about 58 years by the driver and owner of the 4366 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) laying challenge to the Award dated 06.09.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal”) whereby claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents No.2 and 3 has been awarded to Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal upon appraisal of the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that deceased Prem Pal had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a place on 04.03.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by appellant No.1, owned by appellant -old s about 58 years TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1324-2019 (O&M) old at the time of accident. Liability to pay the compensation amount was affixed upon the appellants on account of the fact that at the time of accident, the appellant No.1 was not holding a valid Driving Licence. Accordingly, respondent No.1/Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation amount, however, had been granted right to recover the said compensation amount from the appellants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal was in patent error i the appellants, as it failed to appreciate that the appellants had duly proved on record that on the date of accident i.e. 04.03.2016, the appellant No.1 duly possessed a valid Driving Licence. Company had moved an application for production of legible copy of documents on which the appellants produced on record copy of DL, RC, copy of Fitness certificate and permit etc. After the receipt of aforesa no.1 got the said license verified by appointing Sh. Viketo G Kida insurance investigator who had obtained the verification report from Motor Vehicle Deptt, office of District Transport Officer ZUNHEBOTO Nagaland under Government o Nagaland bearing DTO to the aforesaid investigator by the DTO Nagaland. The same is Ex. R Ld. Tribunal and annexed as Annexure A report of DTO Nagalan 0620100003984 is issued in name of Jagtar Singh on 16.11.2010 by DTO ZUNHEBOTO Nagaland authorizing Jagtar Singh to drive MC/LMV/Transport and PSV only valid uptill 16.5.2021 (NT); and 16.5.2019 (Transp number ZBT011150 on PSV Bus and the same is genuine license. 2019 (O&M) old at the time of accident. Liability to pay the compensation amount was affixed upon the appellants on account of the fact that at the time of accident, the appellant No.1 was not holding a valid Driving Licence. Accordingly, respondent No.1/Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation amount, however, had been granted right to recover the said compensation amount from the Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal was in patent error in affixing responsibility to pay the compensation amount upon the appellants, as it failed to appreciate that the appellants had duly proved on record that on the date of accident i.e. 04.03.2016, the appellant No.1 duly possessed a valid Driving Licence. It is submitted that respondent No.1/Insurance had moved an application for production of legible copy of documents on which the appellants produced on record copy of DL, RC, copy of Fitness certificate and permit etc. After the receipt of aforesa no.1 got the said license verified by appointing Sh. Viketo G Kida insurance investigator who had obtained the verification report from Motor Vehicle Deptt, office of District Transport Officer ZUNHEBOTO Nagaland under Government o Nagaland bearing DTO-Z/DL/V/2017-18/162 dated 13.4.2017 which is addressed to the aforesaid investigator by the DTO Nagaland. The same is Ex. R Ld. Tribunal and annexed as Annexure A-1 before this Court. As per the said report of DTO Nagaland dated 13.4.2017/ Ex. R 0620100003984 is issued in name of Jagtar Singh on 16.11.2010 by DTO ZUNHEBOTO Nagaland authorizing Jagtar Singh to drive MC/LMV/Transport and PSV only valid uptill 16.5.2021 (NT); and 16.5.2019 (Transp number ZBT011150 on PSV Bus and the same is genuine license. -2- old at the time of accident. Liability to pay the compensation amount was affixed upon the appellants on account of the fact that at the time of accident, the appellant No.1 was not holding a valid Driving Licence. Accordingly, respondent No.1/Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation amount, however, had been granted right to recover the said compensation amount from the Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal n affixing responsibility to pay the compensation amount upon the appellants, as it failed to appreciate that the appellants had duly proved on record that on the date of accident i.e. 04.03.2016, the appellant No.1 duly It is submitted that respondent No.1/Insurance had moved an application for production of legible copy of documents on which the appellants produced on record copy of DL, RC, copy of Fitness certificate and permit etc. After the receipt of aforesaid documents, respondent no.1 got the said license verified by appointing Sh. Viketo G Kida insurance investigator who had obtained the verification report from Motor Vehicle Deptt, office of District Transport Officer ZUNHEBOTO Nagaland under Government o 18/162 dated 13.4.2017 which is addressed to the aforesaid investigator by the DTO Nagaland. The same is Ex. R-6 before the 1 before this Court. As per the said d dated 13.4.2017/ Ex. R-6, Driving License Number NL 0620100003984 is issued in name of Jagtar Singh on 16.11.2010 by DTO ZUNHEBOTO Nagaland authorizing Jagtar Singh to drive MC/LMV/Transport and PSV only valid uptill 16.5.2021 (NT); and 16.5.2019 (Transport) with Badge number ZBT011150 on PSV Bus and the same is genuine license. old at the time of accident. Liability to pay the compensation amount was affixed upon the appellants on account of the fact that at the time of accident, the appellant No.1 was not holding a valid Driving Licence. Accordingly, respondent No.1/Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation amount, however, had been granted right to recover the said compensation amount from the Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal n affixing responsibility to pay the compensation amount upon the appellants, as it failed to appreciate that the appellants had duly proved on record that on the date of accident i.e. 04.03.2016, the appellant No.1 duly It is submitted that respondent No.1/Insurance had moved an application for production of legible copy of documents on which the appellants produced on record copy of DL, RC, copy of Fitness id documents, respondent no.1 got the said license verified by appointing Sh. Viketo G Kida insurance investigator who had obtained the verification report from Motor Vehicle Deptt, office of District Transport Officer ZUNHEBOTO Nagaland under Government of 18/162 dated 13.4.2017 which is addressed 6 before the 1 before this Court. As per the said 6, Driving License Number NL- 0620100003984 is issued in name of Jagtar Singh on 16.11.2010 by DTO ZUNHEBOTO Nagaland authorizing Jagtar Singh to drive MC/LMV/Transport ort) with Badge TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1324-2019 (O&M) 4. It is further submitted that Shri Viketo G Kida, insurance investigator, also submitted his report dated 11.05.2017 to respondent no.1 clearly stating that the said DL in que said report as Ex. R also tendered Ex. R stating that license was valid th 16.5.2016 for TR COV; and 2. From 16.11.2015 to 16.5.2016 for NT COV. All the above discussed documents were tendered in evidence before the Ld. Tribunal on 5.2.2018; as evident from zimni order Annexure A 5. It is further pointed out that subsequently respondent no.1 had moved an application on 22.2.2018 Annexure A application that license from basic date of accident". order dated 22.2.2018 (Annexure A dated 26.2.2018 was issued by D Nagaland to submit the validity and genuineness of the aforesaid DL in question. 6. It is contended that, therefore, from the above said documents it is established that after due verification of the record by t as well as the insurance investigator and even on inquiry made by the Ld. Court the license in question was found to be a valid and effective one; except for the periods mentioned hereinabove. However, the Ld. Tribunal ignoring th documents i.e. Ex. R Annexure A-3, without reading the entire evidence in correct perspective. 2019 (O&M) It is further submitted that Shri Viketo G Kida, insurance investigator, also submitted his report dated 11.05.2017 to respondent no.1 clearly stating that the said DL in question is genuine. The National Insurance Company tendered the said report as Ex. R-5/ Annexure A-2. The respondent no.1 insurance company had also tendered Ex. R-7, a printout report of the license which consists of a note stating that license was valid through the period except: 1. from 13.12.2014 to 16.5.2016 for TR COV; and 2. From 16.11.2015 to 16.5.2016 for NT COV. All the above discussed documents were tendered in evidence before the Ld. Tribunal on 5.2.2018; as evident from zimni order Annexure A It is further pointed out that subsequently respondent no.1 had moved an application on 22.2.2018 Annexure A-5, clearly stating in para no.2 of the said application that "the applicant wants to verify the genuineness of the above aid license from basic license through court as Ex. R date of accident". The said application was allowed by the Ld. Tribunal vide its order dated 22.2.2018 (Annexure A-6), and letter bearing reference number 341 dated 26.2.2018 was issued by District and Sessions Judge Ludhiana to DTO Nagaland to submit the validity and genuineness of the aforesaid DL in question. It is contended that, therefore, from the above said documents it is established that after due verification of the record by t as well as the insurance investigator and even on inquiry made by the Ld. Court the license in question was found to be a valid and effective one; except for the periods mentioned hereinabove. However, the Ld. Tribunal ignoring th documents i.e. Ex. R-5, R-6 and the report, relied upon document Ex. R 3, without reading the entire evidence in correct perspective. -3- It is further submitted that Shri Viketo G Kida, insurance investigator, also submitted his report dated 11.05.2017 to respondent no.1 clearly stating that stion is genuine. The National Insurance Company tendered the 2. The respondent no.1 insurance company had 7, a printout report of the license which consists of a note rough the period except: 1. from 13.12.2014 to 16.5.2016 for TR COV; and 2. From 16.11.2015 to 16.5.2016 for NT COV. All the above discussed documents were tendered in evidence before the Ld. Tribunal on 5.2.2018; as evident from zimni order Annexure A-4. It is further pointed out that subsequently respondent no.1 had moved 5, clearly stating in para no.2 of the said "the applicant wants to verify the genuineness of the above aid license through court as Ex. R-7, the license does not cover the The said application was allowed by the Ld. Tribunal vide its 6), and letter bearing reference number 341 istrict and Sessions Judge Ludhiana to DTO Nagaland to submit the validity and genuineness of the aforesaid DL in question. It is contended that, therefore, from the above said documents it is established that after due verification of the record by the office of DTO Nagaland as well as the insurance investigator and even on inquiry made by the Ld. Court the license in question was found to be a valid and effective one; except for the periods mentioned hereinabove. However, the Ld. Tribunal ignoring the above mentioned 6 and the report, relied upon document Ex. R 3, without reading the entire evidence in correct perspective. It is further submitted that Shri Viketo G Kida, insurance investigator, also submitted his report dated 11.05.2017 to respondent no.1 clearly stating that stion is genuine. The National Insurance Company tendered the 2. The respondent no.1 insurance company had 7, a printout report of the license which consists of a note rough the period except: 1. from 13.12.2014 to 16.5.2016 for TR COV; and 2. From 16.11.2015 to 16.5.2016 for NT COV. All the above discussed documents were tendered in evidence before the Ld. Tribunal on It is further pointed out that subsequently respondent no.1 had moved 5, clearly stating in para no.2 of the said "the applicant wants to verify the genuineness of the above aid 7, the license does not cover the The said application was allowed by the Ld. Tribunal vide its 6), and letter bearing reference number 341 istrict and Sessions Judge Ludhiana to DTO Nagaland to submit the validity and genuineness of the aforesaid DL in question. It is contended that, therefore, from the above said documents it is he office of DTO Nagaland as well as the insurance investigator and even on inquiry made by the Ld. Court the license in question was found to be a valid and effective one; except for the periods e above mentioned 6 and the report, relied upon document Ex. R-7/ TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1324-2019 (O&M) 7. It is submitted that therefore, it could not have been held that the appellant No.1 d 8. Per contra, opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that respondent No.1 has been correctly granted rec as on the date of accident appellant No.1 did not possess the valid driving licence. It is, accordingly, prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 9. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the part 10. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. 11. A perusal of the record shows that the Investigator of the Insurance Company-respondent No.1 had p (Annexure A-1 with the present appeal), wherein it was reported as follows: “Sub: VERIFICATION OF DRIVING LICENCE. Sir, With reference to letter No. 202500/TECH/AK/2017 Dated 12/04/2017, on the Subject cited you that the Driving License No. NL office record and verified genuine. Details are as follow, 2019 (O&M) It is submitted that therefore, it could not have been held that the appellant No.1 did not possess a valid Driving Licence at the time of accident. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that respondent No.1 has been correctly granted rec as on the date of accident appellant No.1 did not possess the valid driving licence. It is, accordingly, prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the part I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. A perusal of the record shows that the Investigator of the Insurance respondent No.1 had produced the report dated 13.04.2017 Ex.R 1 with the present appeal), wherein it was reported as follows: Sub: VERIFICATION OF DRIVING LICENCE. Sir, With reference to letter No. 202500/TECH/AK/2017 Dated 12/04/2017, on the Subject cited above, I have the honor to inform you that the Driving License No. NL office record and verified genuine. Details are as follow, 1. Driving Licence 2. Name of the holder 3. Date of Issue 4. Issued by 5. Authorised to drive MC/LMV/TRANS & PSV, ONLY 6. Badge No. 7. Renewed upto -4- It is submitted that therefore, it could not have been held that the id not possess a valid Driving Licence at the time of accident. learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that respondent No.1 has been correctly granted recovery rights against the appellants as on the date of accident appellant No.1 did not possess the valid driving licence. It is, accordingly, prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. A perusal of the record shows that the Investigator of the Insurance roduced the report dated 13.04.2017 Ex.R 1 with the present appeal), wherein it was reported as follows: - Sub: VERIFICATION OF DRIVING LICENCE. Sir, With reference to letter No. 202500/TECH/AK/2017 Dated above, I have the honor to inform you that the Driving License No. NL-0620100003984 is found in the office record and verified genuine. Details are as follow, : NL-0620100003984 :JAGTAR SINGH :16-11-2010 :DTO, ZUNHEBOTO, NAGALAND 5. Authorised to drive MC/LMV/TRANS & PSV, ONLY :ZBTO11150 on PSVBUS : 16/05/2021 (Non Transport) 16/05/2019 (Transport)” It is submitted that therefore, it could not have been held that the Insurance Company opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that overy rights against the appellants as on the date of accident appellant No.1 did not possess the valid driving licence. ies. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find A perusal of the record shows that the Investigator of the Insurance roduced the report dated 13.04.2017 Ex.R-6 Sir, With reference to letter No. 202500/TECH/AK/2017 Dated above, I have the honor to inform 0620100003984 is found in the 5. Authorised to drive MC/LMV/TRANS & PSV, ONLY : 16/05/2021 (Non Transport) TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1324-2019 (O&M) 12. At the respondent No.1 had also produced Report dated 27.04.2017 Ex.R 3 with the present appeal), which reads as follows: “Old Driving Licence Number Driving Licence Number Date of Issue Name of the D.L. Holder Son/Wife/Daughter of Date of Birth Identification Marks Temporary Permanent Validity(Non Transport) Validity(Transport) Class of Vehicle Held & Endorsement Details Other details Transaction Detail No.1 Dat validity > non transport 13/Dec/2011 To 12/Dec/2014 Badge issued Details No.1 Dated:13/Dec/2011 Badge No :ZBTO11150 On PSVBUS 2019 (O&M) At the direction of the learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company respondent No.1 had also produced Report dated 27.04.2017 Ex.R 3 with the present appeal), which reads as follows: Old Driving Licence Number 75011/TV/Z Driving Licence Number NL Date of Issue 16/11/2010 Name of the D.L. Holder JAGTAR SINGH Son/Wife/Daughter of UJJAGAR SINGH Date of Birth 12/05/1954 Identification Marks CUT MARK ON LEFT HAND Temporary Address PLOT NO NAGAR LUDHIANA PUNJAB 141003 Permanent Address NORTH POINT COLONY ZUNHEBOTO NAGALAND 798620 Validity(Non Transport) 16/05/2021 Validity(Transport) 16/05/2019 Class of Vehicle Held & MOTORCYCLE WITH GEAR, Endorsement Details LIGHT TRANSPORT, TRANSPORT VEHICLE M/HMV (REGID CHASSIS) TRANSPORT VEHICLE REGID (REGID CHASSIS) Other details VEH-BUS Transaction Detail No.1 Date of Approval: 17/05/2016: RENEWAL OF DL: having old validity > non-transport from 16/Nov/2010 to 15/Nov/2015 and transport 13/Dec/2011 To 12/Dec/2014 Badge issued Details No.1 Dated:13/Dec/2011 Badge No :ZBTO11150 On PSVBUS -5- direction of the learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company respondent No.1 had also produced Report dated 27.04.2017 Ex.R-7 (Annexure A 3 with the present appeal), which reads as follows: - 75011/TV/Z NL-0620100003984 16/11/2010 JAGTAR SINGH UJJAGAR SINGH 12/05/1954 CUT MARK ON LEFT HAND PLOT NO-112 TRANSPORT NAGAR LUDHIANA PUNJAB 141003 NORTH POINT COLONY ZUNHEBOTO NAGALAND 798620 16/05/2021 16/05/2019 MOTORCYCLE WITH GEAR, LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE NO TRANSPORT, TRANSPORT VEHICLE M/HMV (REGID CHASSIS)-GOODS, TRANSPORT VEHICLE REGID-M/HMV (REGID CHASSIS) -PUBLIC SERVICE BUS e of Approval: 17/05/2016: RENEWAL OF DL: having old transport from 16/Nov/2010 to 15/Nov/2015 and transport 13/Dec/2011 To 12/Dec/2014 No.1 Dated:13/Dec/2011 Badge No :ZBTO11150 On PSVBUS direction of the learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company- 7 (Annexure A- NAGAR LUDHIANA PUNJAB 141003 NORTH POINT COLONY ZUNHEBOTO MOTOR VEHICLE NO TRANSPORT, TRANSPORT VEHICLE DS, M/HMV PUBLIC SERVICE e of Approval: 17/05/2016: RENEWAL OF DL: having old transport from 16/Nov/2010 to 15/Nov/2015 and TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1324-2019 (O&M) Current Status No.1 Last N.B. No.1 From Date 13/12/2014 Το 16/05/2016 For TR COV No.2 (Emphasis added) 13. The said report was received from DTO, Zunheboto, Nagaland. 14. A harmonious and combined reading of the aforesaid two reports very clearly shows that: a) the licence was first issued in the name of the appellant No.1 on 16.11.2010; b) the same was expir and c) was renewed by the appellant No.1 only on 16.11.2016; whereafter d) it was valid upto 16.05.2021. Therefore, on the date of accident i.e. 04.03.2016, appellant No.1 did not possess a valid driving licenc 15. The contention of the appellant that as per report Ex.R issued a licence on 16.11.2010 which was renewed upto 16.05.2021 is misconceived and based on a piecemeal reading of the evidence on record. The said report Ex.R findings of the Tribunal in this regard are contained in para 16 of the impugned Award which reads as follows: “16. After considering the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that ve Singh, driver of the offending vehicle were produced by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3. As per verification reports, licence was issued on 16.11.2010. It is valid for non transport till 16.5.2021 and for transport till 16.5.2019. Class of vehicle for which licence was issued is motorcycle with gear, light motor vehicle non transport, transport vehicle M/HMV(regid chassis) M/HMV(Regid chassis) 2019 (O&M) Current Status No.1 Last Transaction Date: 17/05/2016: RENEWAL OF DL N.B. The License was valid throughout the period except: No.1 From Date 13/12/2014 Το 16/05/2016 For TR COV No.2 -> From Date 16/11/2015 Το 16/05/2016 For NT COV (Emphasis added) The said report was received from DTO, Zunheboto, Nagaland. A harmonious and combined reading of the aforesaid two reports very clearly shows that: a) the licence was first issued in the name of the appellant No.1 on 16.11.2010; b) the same was expired five years thereafter i.e. on 16.11.2015; and c) was renewed by the appellant No.1 only on 16.11.2016; whereafter d) it was valid upto 16.05.2021. Therefore, on the date of accident i.e. 04.03.2016, appellant No.1 did not possess a valid driving licence. The contention of the appellant that as per report Ex.R issued a licence on 16.11.2010 which was renewed upto 16.05.2021 is misconceived and based on a piecemeal reading of the evidence on record. The said report Ex.R-6 cannot be read in isolation of the report Ex.R findings of the Tribunal in this regard are contained in para 16 of the impugned Award which reads as follows:- 16. After considering the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that verification reports of driving licence of Jagtar Singh, driver of the offending vehicle were produced by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3. As per verification reports, licence was issued on 16.11.2010. It is valid for non transport till 16.5.2021 and for ansport till 16.5.2019. Class of vehicle for which licence was issued is motorcycle with gear, light motor vehicle non transport, transport vehicle M/HMV(regid chassis)-Goods, Transport vehicle Regid M/HMV(Regid chassis)-Public Service Veh -6- Transaction Date: 17/05/2016: RENEWAL OF DL The License was valid throughout the period except: No.1 From Date 13/12/2014 Το 16/05/2016 For TR COV > From Date 16/11/2015 Το 16/05/2016 For NT COV” The said report was received from DTO, Zunheboto, Nagaland. A harmonious and combined reading of the aforesaid two reports very clearly shows that: a) the licence was first issued in the name of the appellant No.1 ed five years thereafter i.e. on 16.11.2015; and c) was renewed by the appellant No.1 only on 16.11.2016; whereafter d) it was valid upto 16.05.2021. Therefore, on the date of accident i.e. 04.03.2016, appellant The contention of the appellant that as per report Ex.R-6, he was first issued a licence on 16.11.2010 which was renewed upto 16.05.2021 is misconceived and based on a piecemeal reading of the evidence on record. The read in isolation of the report Ex.R-7. Relevant findings of the Tribunal in this regard are contained in para 16 of the impugned 16. After considering the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the parties, rification reports of driving licence of Jagtar Singh, driver of the offending vehicle were produced by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3. As per verification reports, licence was issued on 16.11.2010. It is valid for non transport till 16.5.2021 and for ansport till 16.5.2019. Class of vehicle for which licence was issued is motorcycle with gear, light motor vehicle non transport, transport Goods, Transport vehicle Regid Public Service Veh-Bus. A note is given that A harmonious and combined reading of the aforesaid two reports very clearly shows that: a) the licence was first issued in the name of the appellant No.1 ed five years thereafter i.e. on 16.11.2015; and c) was renewed by the appellant No.1 only on 16.11.2016; whereafter d) it was valid upto 16.05.2021. Therefore, on the date of accident i.e. 04.03.2016, appellant 6, he was first issued a licence on 16.11.2010 which was renewed upto 16.05.2021 is misconceived and based on a piecemeal reading of the evidence on record. The 7. Relevant findings of the Tribunal in this regard are contained in para 16 of the impugned 16. After considering the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the parties, rification reports of driving licence of Jagtar Singh, driver of the offending vehicle were produced by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3. As per verification reports, licence was issued on 16.11.2010. It is valid for non transport till 16.5.2021 and for ansport till 16.5.2019. Class of vehicle for which licence was issued is motorcycle with gear, light motor vehicle non transport, transport Goods, Transport vehicle Regid- iven that TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1324-2019 (O&M) licence was valid through the period except 1) from date 13.12.2014 to 16.5.2016 for TR COV 2) from date 16.11.2015 to 16.5.2016 for NT COV. The accident in question took place on 4.3.2016. As per note given on Ex.R7, on 4.3.2016, the respondent valid driving licence. Respondent no. 1 did not produce any evidence to explain the reason as to why said licence was not valid for the period mentioned in Ex.R7. The vehicle involved in the accident was truck of type Multi Axle Goods Kgs. The truck involved in the accident is not light motor vehicle, In Mukand Devangan(supra) when a driver is holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle, he is competent to drive specific endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. Report Ex.R7 shows that respondent No. 1 was having driving licence to drive vehicle in question prior to the accident and even after the accident but he was case for respondent No. 3, there was no pleading or evidence adduced by the owner of the offending truck to substantiate the fact that tr driven by one Joginder Singh whose driving licence was produced on record. Owner only produced driving licence of Joginder Singh. So it is held in the said case that merely producing valid insurance certificate in respect of offending truck is not insurance company liable to discharge the liability arising from rash and negligent driving by driver of vehicle. In Co. Ltd., Vs. Sujara Arora(Supra) driving licence is requirement of l licence, then it would completely exonerate the insurance company from its liability. The authority cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 is distinguishable and can not be applied to the facts of instant for the respondent No. 3 are fully applicable to the facts of preent case. So it is held that respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid and 2019 (O&M) licence was valid through the period except 1) from date 13.12.2014 to 16.5.2016 for TR COV 2) from date 16.11.2015 to 16.5.2016 for NT COV. The accident in question took place on 4.3.2016. As per note given on Ex.R7, on 4.3.2016, the respondent valid driving licence. Respondent no. 1 did not produce any evidence to explain the reason as to why said licence was not valid for the period mentioned in Ex.R7. The vehicle involved in the accident was truck of type Multi Axle Goods Vehicle having unladen weight 9040 Kgs. The truck involved in the accident is not light motor vehicle, In Mukand Devangan(supra) it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court that when a driver is holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle, he is competent to drive a transport vehicle of that category without specific endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. Report Ex.R7 shows that respondent No. 1 was having driving licence to drive vehicle in question prior to the accident and even after the accident but he was not having valid driving licence on the date of accident. In case Pappu Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba(supra) for respondent No. 3, there was no pleading or evidence adduced by the owner of the offending truck to substantiate the fact that tr driven by one Joginder Singh whose driving licence was produced on record. Owner only produced driving licence of Joginder Singh. So it is held in the said case that merely producing valid insurance certificate in respect of offending truck is not insurance company liable to discharge the liability arising from rash and negligent driving by driver of vehicle. In Co. Ltd., Vs. Sujara Arora(Supra) driving licence is requirement of law. If driver possessing fake driving licence, then it would completely exonerate the insurance company from its liability. The authority cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 is distinguishable and can not be applied to the facts of instant case, whereas the authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 3 are fully applicable to the facts of preent case. So it is held that respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid and -7- licence was valid through the period except 1) from date 13.12.2014 to 16.5.2016 for TR COV 2) from date 16.11.2015 to 16.5.2016 for NT COV. The accident in question took place on 4.3.2016. As per note given on Ex.R7, on 4.3.2016, the respondent no. 1 was not having valid driving licence. Respondent no. 1 did not produce any evidence to explain the reason as to why said licence was not valid for the period mentioned in Ex.R7. The vehicle involved in the accident was Vehicle having unladen weight 9040 Kgs. The truck involved in the accident is not light motor vehicle, In it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court that when a driver is holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle, he is a transport vehicle of that category without specific endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. Report Ex.R7 shows that respondent No. 1 was having driving licence to drive vehicle in question prior to the accident and even after the accident not having valid driving licence on the date of accident. In Pappu Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba(supra) relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent No. 3, there was no pleading or evidence adduced by the owner of the offending truck to substantiate the fact that truck was driven by one Joginder Singh whose driving licence was produced on record. Owner only produced driving licence of Joginder Singh. So it is held in the said case that merely producing valid insurance certificate in respect of offending truck is not enough to make insurance company liable to discharge the liability arising from rash and negligent driving by driver of vehicle. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Sujara Arora(Supra) it is held that holding a valid aw. If driver possessing fake driving licence, then it would completely exonerate the insurance company from its liability. The authority cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 is distinguishable and can not be applied to case, whereas the authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 3 are fully applicable to the facts of preent case. So it is held that respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid and licence was valid through the period except 1) from date 13.12.2014 to 16.5.2016 for TR COV 2) from date 16.11.2015 to 16.5.2016 for NT COV. The accident in question took place on 4.3.2016. As per note no. 1 was not having valid driving licence. Respondent no. 1 did not produce any evidence to explain the reason as to why said licence was not valid for the period mentioned in Ex.R7. The vehicle involved in the accident was Vehicle having unladen weight 9040 Kgs. The truck involved in the accident is not light motor vehicle, In it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court that when a driver is holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle, he is a transport vehicle of that category without specific endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. Report Ex.R7 shows that respondent No. 1 was having driving licence to drive vehicle in question prior to the accident and even after the accident not having valid driving licence on the date of accident. In relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent No. 3, there was no pleading or evidence adduced by uck was driven by one Joginder Singh whose driving licence was produced on record. Owner only produced driving licence of Joginder Singh. So it is held in the said case that merely producing valid insurance enough to make insurance company liable to discharge the liability arising from rash United India Insurance it is held that holding a valid aw. If driver possessing fake driving licence, then it would completely exonerate the insurance company from its liability. The authority cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 is distinguishable and can not be applied to case, whereas the authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 3 are fully applicable to the facts of preent case. So it is held that respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid and TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1324-2019 (O&M) effective driving licence at the time of accident in question. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of respondent No. 3 and against respondents No. 1 and 2.” 16. From the above Reports licence was issued to appellant No.1 on 16.11.2010; which licence was renewed for non 16.05.2019. A perusal of the the licence was valid from 13.12.2014 to 16.05.2014 for non Thus, as per Report Ex.R driving licence. No evidence whatsoever, t appellants. 17. No arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the quantum of compensation. 18. Consequently, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Award. Thus, the p 19. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. April 21, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2019 (O&M) effective driving licence at the time of accident in question. cordingly, this issue is decided in favour of respondent No. 3 and against respondents No. 1 and 2.” From the above-said facts it is clear that as per the Verification Reports licence was issued to appellant No.1 on 16.11.2010; which licence was renewed for non-transport vehicle upto 16.05.2021 and for transport vehicle upto 16.05.2019. A perusal of the report Ex.R-7 shows that a note has been given that the licence was valid from 13.12.2014 to 16.05.2014 for non Thus, as per Report Ex.R-7, on 04.03.2016, appellant No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence. No evidence whatsoever, to the contrary, has been led by the No arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the quantum of compensation. Consequently, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Thus, the present Appeal is accordingly Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -8- effective driving licence at the time of accident in question. cordingly, this issue is decided in favour of respondent No. 3 and said facts it is clear that as per the Verification Reports licence was issued to appellant No.1 on 16.11.2010; which licence was transport vehicle upto 16.05.2021 and for transport vehicle upto 7 shows that a note has been given that the licence was valid from 13.12.2014 to 16.05.2014 for non-transport vehicle. 7, on 04.03.2016, appellant No.1 was not holding a valid o the contrary, has been led by the No arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the quantum of compensation. Consequently, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned resent Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No effective driving licence at the time of accident in question. cordingly, this issue is decided in favour of respondent No. 3 and said facts it is clear that as per the Verification Reports licence was issued to appellant No.1 on 16.11.2010; which licence was transport vehicle upto 16.05.2021 and for transport vehicle upto 7 shows that a note has been given that transport vehicle. 7, on 04.03.2016, appellant No.1 was not holding a valid o the contrary, has been led by the No arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the Consequently, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document