The validity of the driving license and the need for remittance for leading additional evidence were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - CM. aPPL. 12378/2022 (Exemption)

allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM. aPPL. 12379/2022 (condonation of delay)

1. It is contended in the application that the appellants were proceeded exparte on 18.02.2016 and since the vehicle was insured the appellants were under the impression that the case would be defended by the insurance company. It is further submitted that the counsel who was engaged did not inform them about the progress of the case.

2. In any event in a connected appeal being MaC. aPP. 54/2022, emanating out of the same accident, but a different tribunal, this Court has remitted the matter for taking fresh evidence limited to the aspect of grant of recovery rights which was granted on the sole ground that the driving licence was fake.

3. In that view of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice to condone the delay and direct both the Petitions to be taken together.

4. accordingly, the application is allowed.

MaC.aPP. 73/2022 & CM. aPPL. 12377/2022 (stay)

1. appellant impugns award dated 20.02.2018 to the limited extent that it grants recovery rights to respondent No.1/insurance company against the appellant.

2. The impugned award has also been impugned by the insurance company on its merits. However, since the appeal pertains only to grant of recovery rights to the insurance company, notice is restricted only to the insurance company

3. With the consent of parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in holding that there was no valid driving license in favour of the driver, who was driving the offending vehicle and that the driving license was fake.

5. He draws attention to para 6.1 of the impugned order where the testimony of an officer from the Transport authority (R3W1, Sanjay Kumar Jha) has been referred to wherein he has deposed that there the Driving Licence was issued in the name of one Sudhir Kumar and not anoop Kumar.

6. Learned counsel for appellant relies on the website of the RTO, wherein it is being shown that the driving license number 530/FKB/2006 is issued in the name of anup Kumar on 22.01.2003.

7. It is noticed from the testimony of R3W1 that he has deposed about licence no. 530/Farrukhabad/2003 whereas the licence no. of the driver of the offending vehicle is 530/Farrukhabad/2006. The website even today shows that the driving license was issued on 22.01.2003 in the name of anup Kumar.

8. Further, learned counsel for petitioner contends that the driver had undergone the requisite training for transporting hazardous goods and as such there was no specific requirement for endorsement on the license. He relies on the judgment of a coordinate bench of this court dt. 12.10.2017 in MaC.aPP. 1043/2016, tittled'National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sonia Mittal &Others'.

9. Learned counsel further submits that the permit could not be produced before the Tribunal. However, he has filed the same before this Court.

10. Learned counsel prays that the matter be remitted on the limited extent of grant of recovery rights to enable the appellant to lead further evidence.

11. Contention of learned counsel for the insurance company is that the appellant did not produce the relevant records before the Tribunal and accordingly it has caused prejudice to the insurance company and in case the matter is to be remitted, appellant should be put to some terms.

12. In view of the fact that the impugned award relies on the testimony of the witness from the RTO, who has referred to a different number and the website of the RTO is even as on date showing the same having been issued and further the fact that the appellant has produced the certificate of training as well as the permit of the said vehicle valid during the relevant period, it is a fit case for a remit to the Tribunal on the limited extent of the grant of recovery rights against the appellant.

13. accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the limited extent that it gra