The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, specifically regarding the liability of the insurer and the recovery of compensation from the owner of the insured bus.

B.S. Walia, J.

This order shall dispose of CIMA No. 335/2012 and CIMA No. 334/2012. While claimant in CIMA No. 335/2012 is Pinki Kumari, claimant in CIMA No. 334/2012 is her husband-Pupinder Singh. On submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts are being taken from CIMA No. 335/2012.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against award dated 08.06.20.12 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act in claim petition titled "Pinki Kumari v. National Co. Ltd. and Ors." with a prayer for setting aside the same and for dismissing the claim petition.

3. Main plea of learned counsel for the appellant is that the accident took place due to collision between the bus enroute Ludhiana and a truck coming from the opposite direction in the early hours of 08.12.2007 near Raipur Rasoolpur, G.T. Road, Jalandhar.

4. On vernacular of FIR being read out by learned counsel for the appellant, it transpires that aforementioned plea of the appellant is factually incorrect and in fact, the bus in which the claimants were traveling and the truck with which the collision took place, were both going in the same direction i.e. towards Jalandhar. Faced with the position emerging from reading of the FIR, learned counsel for the appellant states that he does not press the plea with regard to the accident having been caused due to negligence of the truck driver.

5. An important aspect of the matter which needs mention is that the accident took place at approximately 4:10 A.M. on 08.12.2007 i.e. at a time when there was fog/mist in the area, as is evident from the statement of claimant-Pinki Kumari.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to refer to any evidence to show that the statement of Pinki Kumari-Respondent No. 1-claimant is factually incorrect on either of the aforementioned two aspects, namely, of the bus in which she was traveling having struck against the truck going in the same direction, secondly of the accident having taken place at 4:10 A.M. in foggy weather in the month of December, 2007.

7. The other plea put forth by learned counsel for the appellant is that Respondent No. 3 i.e. driver of the bus in question did not have a valid driving license on the date of accident, but the Tribunal erred in not granting liberty to the appellant to effect recovery of the compensation to be paid by it to the claimant from the owner of the bus i.e. Respondent No. 2. It was contended that the finding of the learned MACT, Jammu with regard to license of Respondent No. 3 was not borne out from the evidence and that despite the appellant having established before the MACT, Jammu that driving license No. 1464/ARTO purported to have been issued on .10.04.2002 by the Licensing Authority Udhampur and Doda in the name of Respondent No. 3 had in fact been issued in the name of one-Dalip Kumar and not in the name of driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Respondent No. 3, MACT, Jammu had proceeded on considerations which were not relevant by recording that there was only one Licensing Authority for Udhampur and Doda and later on the said Licensing Authority was bifurcated and a separate Authority for each of the districts was established, therefore, the record pertaining to the respective districts was shifted to the office of concerned Licensing Authority and that since the address of Respondent No. 3 was of Pull Doda, therefore, record pertaining to Doda was with the Licensing Authority Doda, therefore, record pertaining to driving license could not be available with the Licensing Authority Udhampur, consequentially was not found available in the said office and that unless it was shown that the particulars of Respondent No. 3 did not tally with the record of the Licensing Authority, Doda, it could not be said with certainty that the driving license of Respondent No. 3 was fake.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant co