IMPORTANT POINT
The genuineness of the driving licence is crucial for the insurer's right to recovery, and the appellate court cannot enhance compensation without an appeal by the claimants.

ORDER :

1. The insurer has challenged the award dated 23.09.2000, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.45/1994 as well as Motor Accident Claim Case No.42/1994 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh. The main ground for challenge is that since the driver had no genuine driving licence rather he had produced a fake driving licence, the insurer should have been allowed right to recovery in both the matters. Further the quantum of compensation decided in both the claim cases have been challenged as excessive one.

2. A brief background of the case is that on 25.12.1998, the deceased Om Prakash and Kalwant alongwith some others were going on a Jeep bearing registration No.RSK-534 from Pakka Sarna to Sriganganagar. Near village Palewali Dhani, a Truck bearing registration No.HIU-1323 coming from the side of Sriganganagar on a very high and negligent speed collided with the Jeep as a result whereof, the Jeep driver Sadhuram, Om Prakash, Jaswant, Labhsingh and Kalwant died on the spot and some other passengers sustained injuries. An FIR was registered and after investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the Truck.

3. The driver of the offending Truck produced a driving licence, vide Exhibit-8. The investigator of the appellant investigated the genuineness of the driving licence and reported that the driving licence was not issued by the Licensing Authority, Hyderabad from where it was purportedly issued. Thereafter, the Tribunal took precaution and requested the District Judge, Hyderabad to get statement of Licensing Authority recorded. A copy of the statement of Licensing Authority was also brought on the record which reveals the same was recorded by the appointed Advocate Commissioner signed on 21.07.2000 by him as well as the Licensing Authority. In the statement, it has specifically been mentioned that the driving licence No.13629/86 dated 18.09.1986 was not issued in favour of the driver of the offending Truck.

4. The learned Tribunal wrongfully rejected the same by saying that it is not evident who had recorded the statement and original records were not transmitted to the Tribunal. Likewise, the Tribunal wrongly disbelieved the investigation report of the appellant even though there was no contrary evidence on the record, especially when the driver and owner did not contest the claim case.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents does not dispute that there was evidence on record to substantiate that the driver of the offending Truck had no driving licence rather he had produced a fake driving licence.

6. The driver and owner were noticed in this appeal as well, but no one appeared either for the driver or owner, even after publication of notice in the daily newspaper.

7. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that in a summary proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act, strict rule of Evidence Act is not applicable and as such proof beyond reasonable doubt was also not required.

8. Thus, it is evident that the appellant had proved that the driver of the offending Truck had no driving licence on the date of accident. Hence, the appellant has right to recover after payment of compensation to the claimants. The right can be exercised jointly and severally against the driver and owner of the Truck as held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 and in subsequent judgments.

9. Swaran Singh case (supra) was directly a case on non-availability of driving licence. Therefore, the appellant is directed to pay to the dependents of the victims of the incident the compensation decided by the Tribunal minus already paid amount and may exercise the right to recover the same from owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

10. Learned counsel next contends that the Tribunal has not followed the settled method of calculation of compensation as such has awarded excessive compensation in both the matters.

11. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submits th