RAJINDER PURI Vs. SANDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JASPAL Singh, J 1. Rajinder Puri, registered owner of Truck bearing No.PIL ­ 9566 has preferred the instant appeal feeling dissatisfied against Award dated August 5, 1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short, 'Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal, while disposing of claim petition bearing MACT No.5/75 of 1994, exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation and held the driver and owner i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the claim petition, liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/ - to the claimants with interest as reflected in the impugned award.

(2.) THE contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that it is an admitted fact that the vehicle in question was duly insured with Insurance Company ­ respondent No.3 on the date of accident and it was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to prove the contravention of the terms and conditions of the policy. Since it has failed to discharge its onus, it cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation. The appellant, owner of the vehicle in question, verified the driving license of the driver, at the time he was employed, which was bearing seal and signatures of the licensing authority. Besides, he had also taken care to see that the driver had the experience and skill required to drive the truck. The learned Tribunal has laid much stress upon the statement of RW -2 ­ Mohinder Singh Ahlmad, an employee of the Licensing Authority, Meerut who has deposed that driving license Ex.RW -2/1 was not issued by the Licensing Authority, Meerut. Neither the register was paginated nor he was the author or signatory of the entries in the license. So, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal that driver was not holding a valid driving license and that there was no liability on the part of respondent No.3 ­ Insurance Company, are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be modified by shifting the liability upon the Insurance Company.

(3.) I have given anxious thought to the rival submissions and have perused the record. The only point which requires determination in the case in hand is whether respondent No.3 ­ Insurance Company is liable to make the payment of compensation, especially when driving license held by driver of offending vehicle is found to be fake.