FAO-7782 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 Kuldeep Singh New India Assurance Company Ltd. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) and driver, respectively (hereinafter referred to as appeal against the impugned Award dated Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, petition bearing Tribunal had claimant/respondent No. respondent the appellants. offending vehicle, were granted to respondent No. Tribunal only on the ground that Garib Dass/appellant No. 2 herein was not holding a valid driving licence on 7782-2017 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO Date of Decision: Kuldeep Singh and another Versus Assurance Company Ltd. and Anr. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Naveneet Jindal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr. KL Saini, Advocate for respondent No. 2. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The appellants, namely, Kuldeep Singh and Garib Dass , respectively of truck bearing registration No. (hereinafter referred to as-‘the offending vehicle appeal against the impugned Award dated 04.09.2017 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula petition bearing MACP No. 215/2015 dated Tribunal had awarded compensation to the tune of claimant/respondent No. 2 herein; and further respondent No. 1-Insurance Company to recover the aforesaid amount from the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants/ow offending vehicle, inter alia, submits vide impugned Award, recovery rights were granted to respondent No. 1-Insurance Company by the learned Tribunal only on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Garib Dass/appellant No. 2 herein was not holding a valid driving licence on IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-7782-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.05.2025 .… Appellants and Anr. .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No. 1-Insurance Co. respondent No. 2. Kuldeep Singh and Garib Dass/owner bearing registration No. HP-64-2452 ‘the offending vehicle’) have filed the instant 04.09.2017 passed by the learned Panchkula (for short- ‘the Tribunal) in a /2015 dated 30.11.2015, whereby the learned awarded compensation to the tune of ₹9,46,095/- to the ; and further granting recovery rights to to recover the aforesaid amount from Learned counsel for the appellants/owner and driver of the vide impugned Award, recovery rights Insurance Company by the learned driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Garib Dass/appellant No. 2 herein was not holding a valid driving licence on owner have filed the instant passed by the learned ‘the Tribunal) in a , whereby the learned e granting recovery rights to to recover the aforesaid amount from ner and driver of the vide impugned Award, recovery rights Insurance Company by the learned driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Garib Dass/appellant No. 2 herein was not holding a valid driving licence on RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.06 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7782 the date of accident i.e. 21.01.2015. was factually incorrect as holding a valid Insurance Company vehicle/appellant No. 2 driving licence on the date of accident. In this regard, report of the Investigator dated 30.09.2022 is been noticed Court. impugned Award recovery rights granted to respondent No. Insurance Company is held liable to claimant/respondent No. 2 02.05.2025 rishu 7782-2017 (O&M) -2- the date of accident i.e. 21.01.2015. It is submitted that the aforesaid ground was factually incorrect as, on the date of accident, a valid driving licence. On instructions, learned counsel for respondent No. Insurance Company admits that the driving licence of the driver of offending /appellant No. 2 herein was verified; and it was found to be a valid driving licence on the date of accident. In this regard, report of the Investigator dated 30.09.2022 is also placed been noticed in the order dated 24.02.2023 In view of the above, the present appeal impugned Award dated 04.09.2017 is set aside recovery rights granted to respondent No. Insurance Company is held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the /respondent No. 2. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable It is submitted that the aforesaid ground on the date of accident, appellant No. 2 was earned counsel for respondent No. 1- the driving licence of the driver of offending was verified; and it was found to be a valid driving licence on the date of accident. In this regard, report of the also placed on record and this fact has also in the order dated 24.02.2023 by a co-ordinate Bench of this In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed; and the set aside only to the extent of recovery rights granted to respondent No. 1-Insurance Company; and the pay the amount of compensation to the Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No It is submitted that the aforesaid ground was the driving licence of the driver of offending was verified; and it was found to be a valid driving licence on the date of accident. In this regard, report of the on record and this fact has also ench of this and the only to the extent of Insurance Company; and the pay the amount of compensation to the RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.06 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.