ROHIT MARWAHA Vs. TARSEM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 5.9.2006, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short 'the Tribunal'), impugning that the Ld. Tribunal erroneously fastened the liability upon the appellant to pay the compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two fold arguments. He refers to the statement of RW 1 Sham Lal, Clerk, DTO, Jalandhar and states that the driver Gopal Krishan was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. He states that it has specifically come in the evidence of this witness that the driving licence (of driver Gopal Krishan) which was initially issued on 22.5.2001 was valid till 21.5.2004 and was subsequently renewed on 23.8.2004, with effect from 22.5.2004, after recovering the penalty from driver Gopal Krishan. The said licence was valid from 22.5.2004 to 22.8.2007. The accident occurred on 20.8.2004.

(2.) His second argument is that though the driver Gopal Krishan had applied for renewal of the driving licence and he was not debarred from driving the vehicle, therefore, he be deemed to have been in possession of valid driving licence. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on Ram Phal v. Krishna Makkar and Others, 1989 ACJ 1126.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the driver deposited the fee for renewal of the driving licence on 23.8.2004; the accident in the instant case occurred on 20.8.2004, therefore, on the date of the accident, neither the driver was having a valid driving licence nor he has moved any application for renewal of the same.