[2025:RJ-JP:43347] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2864/2007 The National Insurance Company Ltd., Jeevan Nidhi (IInd Floor), Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Narayani Widow of Late Shri Devaram aged 65 years, 2. Vikram Adopted S/o Late Sardara Ram aged 10 years, Through Natural Guardian Grand Mother Narayani Devi, 3. Arjun Singh S/o Late Devaram aged 42 years, 4. Gangadhar Singh S/o Late Devaram aged 40 years, All are R/o Jogiyon Ka Bas, Tan Chhoti Bidodi, Tehsil Laxmangarh Distt. Sikar. ----Claimants/Respondents 5. Sube Singh S/o Hetu Ram, R/o Subji Mandi Police Station Hansi Distt. Hisar, Harayan Driver Truck No. HR-39-5986 6. Pappu Singh S/o Akhay Ram, R/o House No. 56-1, First Block, Gram Maimad, Plice Station Hisar Sadar, At Present Naya Gaon Rampura Police Station Hansi Sadar, Distt, Hisar Haryana. Insurer Owner Of Truck No. HR39/5986 ----Non-Claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bhushan Bansal with Mr. Mohit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitesh Pareek for Mr. A.K. Bajpai HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 29/10/2025 The present appeal filed by the National Insurance Company arise out against the order dated 17.03.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) Court, Sikar. [2025:RJ-JP:43347] (2 of 4) [CMA-2864/2007] The facts giving rise to this appeal is that on 28.08.2002 the respondents-claimants filed a claim petition before the learned MACT, in respect of the death of Sardara Ram, aged about 44 years, alleging that the death occurred as a consequence of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Truck No. HR- 39/5986, owned by the respondent. It is averred that on 12.05.2002 at about 5:30 P.M., the said truck struck the deceased, causing him grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was immediately taken to the hospital; however, despite medical treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 13.05.2002. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company has contended that the learned MACT Court has erred in allowing the claim petition of the claimants and specially deciding Issue No.3. It is alleged that the driving license (Ex.11) produced by the claimants as that of the driver of the vehicle is fake and despite the fact that the Insurance Company has brought on record evidence by producing exhibit Ex.NA-2, stating that the license was not issued or renewed by the Registration and Licensing Authority, the learned MACT Court has erred in treating the license to be valid and thereby rejecting the objection of the Insurance Company. On the contrary, learned counsel for the claimants has argued that they have sufficiently proved that the driving license and the alleged document Ex.NA-2 cannot be treated to be a document issued by the Registration and Licensing Authority, to hold the license as a fake. Hence, it is submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in law or in deciding the claim petition. [2025:RJ-JP:43347] (3 of 4) [CMA-2864/2007] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The sole contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company is that the driving license of driver of the truck was not genuine, was fake and that they had sufficiently proved the same; therefore, there was no ground to fasten liability upon the Insurance company. Upon perusing the judgment of award passed by the learned trial Court, it is seen that learned trial Court while deciding issue No.3, has specifically held that the Insurance company has failed to prove that the driving license was fake, as nothing has been placed on record in writing issued by the Registration and Licensing Authority. I have perused the record and it clearly reveals that the driving license was exhibited as Ex.11 by the claimants and to counter the same the respondent-Insurance Company has placed on record the letter dated 27.05.2004 written by Subhash Sood, who is stated to be surveyor and loss assessor. The letter has been exhibited as Ex.NA-2. This letter is only in response to the letter of the Insurance company, stating that he visited the Office of Registration and Licensing Authority and as per his final verification the said license has not been issued or renewed by them. Meaning thereby, there is no document or any authentic letter issued by the Registration and Licensing Authority with regard to the license of Subey Singh and merely a letter has been placed by an assessor stating that upon final verification it was found not to be issued. This letter by no means can be treated as authentic evidence or even taken into cognizance for holding that the driving license of Subey Singh was not issued or renewed by [2025:RJ-JP:43347] (4 of 4) [CMA-2864/2007] the Registration and Licensing Authority or that it is fake, as argued by the counsel for the Insurance company. I see no error in the findings recorded by the learned MACT Court. Moreover, they are factual findings and have been arrived at after considering the evidence on record. In view of observations made above, I see no case of interference in the order of 17.03.2007 passed by the MACT Court, Sikar. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Insurance company is dismissed. This Court vide order dated 09.08.2007, had passed an interim order directing the insurance company to deposit the award amount with the MACT Court concerned and the same was ordered to be invested in FDR. The stay has continued till date. Hence, it is directed that MACT Court shall take necessary steps and immediately release entire amount of FDR to the claimant-respondent Nos.2 to 4, as qua respondent No.1 the appeal already stands dismissed as abated vide order dated 17.05.2025. The record be sent to the learned trial Court below. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J DANISH USMANI /17