JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. The appellant-insurer is aggrieved by the fastening of liability upon it by the High Court in terms of the impugned judgment dated 14th September 2022 passed in FAO No.1049 of 2016 and FAO No.8517 of 2015 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, reversing the finding of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Panipat ¹ [ MACT Case No. 116 of 2012 / Tribunal] though granting compensation to the claimants but directing the respondents nos. 1 and 2, namely, Om Prakash (driver of the offending vehicle) and Rajinder Singh (owner of the offending vehicle), to pay the amount as awarded. The Tribunal held the appellant-insurer not liable to pay the same.

3. The accident in question took place on 14th October, 2009 when the offending vehicle hit the two-wheeler being driven by the claimant. The aspect of rash and negligent driving is not in dispute. The reason why the Tribunal held only respondents 1 and 2, and not respondent no.3 before it to be liable is that at the time of the accident the driver did not possess a valid license. The total amount quantified as compensation, payable to the claimants, is Rs.86,95,947/- along with 7.5% interest. There was a further stipulation that if the amount was not paid within two months, interest would be at the rate of 9% thereafter. On appeals filed by the claimant, driver, and the owner, the High Court took a different view and held that the driver did indeed have a valid license and, as such, the appellant-insurer herein would be liable to pay compensation. The total amount in the High Court’s computation was Rs.1,08,08,909/- with 8% interest.

4. The Tribunal found a contradiction between the statement of RW3 Shailendra Pal Singh, who is the Motor Licensing Officer, Northwest, Wazirpur, Delhi, and the document produced by him. He deposed that a license had been issued to Om Prakash on 22nd June 2007, which was valid till 21st June 2010 for the category of vehicle i.e. Motorcycle and HTV. However, the record produced by him is said to have contradicted this statement since the extract produced did not match the dates. The Tribunal also took note of the testimony of one Gopal Krishan RW1, Dealing Assistant, Transport Department, Wazirpur Authority, who deposed categorically, that Om Prakash did not have a license.

5. However, on the very same count, the High Court held that the driving license copy which was produced, showed it to be renewed as on 22nd June 2007 and valid up to 21st June 2010. The testimony of RW3 was referred to and so was the communication from the Motor Licensing Office of RW3, that due to some technical error at the time of data transfer to the outsourced company, there was some loss of data. Therefore, on the basis of the statement of RW3, it was certified that the driving license of Om Prakash stood renewed for the relevant period. The relevant extracts of the Tribunal’s reasoning as also the High Court’s are placed sequentially as under:

The Tribunal:

“36. Now, it is to be seen as to who is responsible for compensating the claimant.0

37. RW.1 Gopal Krishan, Dealing Assistant, Transport Department Wazirpur Authority, Delhi, has proved the driving licence of the respondent no.1 Ex.R4 on record. This witness has further proved the reports Ex.R6 and Ex.R7 supplied under the RTI Act. He has deposed that their licencing authority has issued heavy driving licence w.e.f. 25.08.2010 to 24.08.2013 and from 06.02.2006 to 21.06.2007 for private vehicle. He further deposed that as per reports Ex.R6 and Ex.R7, driver Om Parkash was not having a driving licence to drive the vehicle on 14.10.2009.

38. RW.2 Raj Singh, Clerk, Transport Department, Rohini, Sector-16, Delhi has testified that he has brought the summoned record of driving licence no.1119920103408 in the name of Om Parkash son of Narain Dutt. Said driving licence is valid w.e.f. 03.04.1992 to 03.04.1996 and the same is issued w.e.f. 24.08.2013 to 23.08.2016 for Transport vehicle/m