IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision:29.10.2025 Na+onal Insurance Co. Ltd. …..Appellant Vs.

Jagir Kaur and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gopal Mi(cid:18)al, Advocate for the appellant.

Respondents ex parte vide order dated 07.03.2025.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Ini"ally appearance was made on behalf of respondent/driver and owner but later on nobody had put in appearance.

2. In a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 06.02.1996, one Shri Nath expired due to rash and negligent driving of bus No.PAB-7056 of pal transport company. Some other persons were also injured. The legal representa"ves of Shri Nath and one injured filed claim pe""ons, which were duly contested by the driver, owner as well as insurance company. Learned Tribunal vide award dated 12.02.1999 awarded compensa"on in favour of the claimants. The objec"on raised by the insurance company to the effect that driving licence of respondent No.1 Lakhwinder Singh (respondent No.4 herein) i.e. driver was fake was negated by the Tribunal and said insurance company was held liable to indemnify the owner.

3. The present appeal has been filed by the insurance company contes"ng its liability to make the payment of the compensa"on. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that driving licence bearing No.F/2931/SB Mokokchung, Nagaland relied upon by the driver/owner of the offending vehicle was found to be fake as proved by the report (Ex.R7) of Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, Advocate, who was appointed as a Local Commissioner by the Tribunal. However, learned Tribunal despite no"cing the report observed that non-issuance of the license in the name of respondent No.1 (respondent No.4 herein) by the office of D.T.O. Mokokchung could not be a(cid:18)ributed as the breach of the condi"on of the insurance policy.

4. There is merit in the said conten"on.

5. As per the statement of T. Sashi Aier, an official of the D.T.O., Mokokchung recorded by Shri Mohal Lal Sharma, Advocate, the Local Commissioner, the driving license which had been relied upon by the driver of the offending vehicle was not issued in the name of respondent No.1 (respondent No.4 herein) by the said office. On specific query put by this Court, as to whether the counsel for the driver/owner got the opportunity to cross-examine the witness i.e. T. Sashi Aier, learned counsel for the appellant submits that no"ce to them was issued by the Local Commissioner but they preferred not to accompany him. The said conten"on of learned counsel for the appellant is supported by the no"ce (Ex.R3) available on the trial Court record which would reveal that before visi"ng the office of D.T.O. Mokokchung, the no"ce to counsel for all the par"es was sent by said Local Commissioner. The counsel for the driver as well as the owner had the full opportunity to cross-examine the witness but they preferred not to do so. The report is quite clear to the effect that driving license relied upon by the driver/owner of the offending vehicle was fake as it was not issued by the office of D.T.O. Mokokchung, which purported to had issued the same.

6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the case is squarely covered by “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sujata Arora” 2013(3) TAC

29, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“However, learned Single Judge of the High Court proceeded on wrong assump"on and held it otherwise giving rise to filing of the present appeal. The findings of learned Single Judge that even if driver was having a fake licence, would not exonerate the Insurance Company as he was not negligent in driving, are certainly erroneous. Driving without licence or with a fake licence and driving a vehicle negligently are two different aspects of the ma(cid:18)er. Holding a valid driving licence is a requirement of law. If the vehicle was being driven by a person holding a valid licence, but rashly and negligently, is a ma(cid:18)er of evidence