The burden of proof lies with the insurance company to challenge the validity of a driving license, and the importance of evidence in establishing negligence in motor accident claims.

V. K. Bali, J.

1. By this common order I propose to dispose of six connected civil revisions bearing Nos.801 to 806 of 2002, as all these revisions have been filed challenging the award rendered by learned motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 7.9.2001, whereby respondents in all these revisions were held entitled to various amounts of compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case reveal that number of persons, who were members of a marriage party, after solemnisation of the marriage were returning to village Rajapur by a tractor-trolley on 3.7.1996. This tractor was being driven by Kashmira and when the tractor-trolley carrying the marriage party reached village Baroli on G. T. Road, a truck bearing No. HR 41-0211 came from Panipat side which was being driven by Sukhwant Singh in a rash and zigzag manner and also negligently. The same struck against the tractor-trolley on its left side. The accident resulted into injuries to number of persons travelling in the tractor-trolley, some of whom succumbed to their injuries. Number of claim petitions that were filed under the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act were consolidated by mr. Manjit Singh, Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Panipat and disposed of by a common award dated 7.9.2001. Out of so many claim petitions that were consolidated, as referred to above, the petitioner, insurance company, has filed these six revisions.

3. Mr. Suri, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on the basis of judgment recorded in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Bhushan Sachdeva, 2002 ACJ 333 (SC), contends that the petitioner insurance company is an aggrieved party and, thus, it is open to the insurance company to invoke the right under sec. 173 of the act as the insured in the present case has failed to appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal.

4. In view of the judgment referred to above, learned counsel was heard on merits of the case but insofar as issue pertaining to the accident having been taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, he could urge nothing that may detract from findings on the said issue recorded by learned Tribunal. Even though nothing substantial has been urged under issue No.1, it may, however, be mentioned that in order to prove that the accident had taken place in the way and manner as pleaded in the petition, claimants examined Hem Raj, pw 4, who was travelling in the tractor-trolley, which met with an accident, along with his wife and daughter as also mother. He has fully supported the version of the claimants. The evidence given by Hem Raj was supported by Arjun, PW 1 and Veer bhan, PW 2, who were injured in the same accident. The claimants also examined sunil Kumar, PW 3, ahlmad from the court of ACJM, Panipat, who stated that driver of the offending vehicle was facing trial under sections 279/337/338/304-A of Indian Penal Code. The claimants also brought on record copy of the report under sec. 173, Code of Criminal Procedure relating to this very accident. Sukhwant singh, driver of the offending vehicle did not step into the witness-box to rebut overwhelming evidence produced on behalf of the claimants. On the basis of evidence, as mentioned above, this court finds nothing wrong whatsoever in the findings of learned Tribunal pertaining to issue No.1 that it was because of negligence of respondent no.1 that so many people travelling in the tractor-trolley had suffered injuries, some of whom had even died.

5. The only other contention of learned counsel pertains to fake driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, which gave rise to issue No.3. With a view to substantiate this plea, petitioner insurance company, produced letter of investigator mark-A and the report of the Licensing authority, mark-B and on that basis urged before learned Tribunal that licence obtained by the driver of the offending vehicle was fake. Learned Tribunal repelled the arguments on the aforesaid contenti