##PAGE1##

FAO-3140-2008 (O&M) 1 of 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

239 FAO-3140-2008 (O&M)

Date of decision: 13.05.2026

Dashmesh Pipe Industries ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Major Singh @ Mejev Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Ishmeet Singh, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. R.C.Gupta, Advocate

for respondent No.3-Insurance Co.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the owner of the Truck

(Trolla) bearing registration No. PCN 9577 (hereinafter referred to as

“offending vehicle”) laying challenge to the Award dated 23.05.2008 passed

by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short “the

learned Tribunal”); whereby Claim Petition bearing MACT No. 11 dated

19.07.2004 filed by the injured-claimant/respondent No.2 herein, has been

allowed; and compensation of Rs.4,57,180/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a.

has been awarded to the claimant.

2. Appellant is aggrieved of the fact that vide the impugned Award

dated 23.05.2008, recovery rights have been granted to the Insurance

Company/respondent No.3 herein, against the appellant on the ground that

DIVYANSHI

2026.05.14 17:00

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO-3140-2008 (O&M) 2 of 8

respondent No.1/driver was not holding valid driving license at the time of

accident.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of

evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the injured-claimant had

suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 20.05.2004

at about 7:30 a.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of a Truck (Trolla)

bearing registration No. PCN9577/Offending vehicle being driven by

respondent No.1; owned by the appellant; and insured by respondent No.3.

The recovery rights were granted against the appellant by the learned

Tribunal for the following reasons: -

“17. It stands established on record, that respondent no.

1, did not possess valid and effective driving licence on the date

of accident. On the face of copy of driving licence of respondent

no. 1, it appears, of be fake, because his name, and seal of

Registering authority are not correctly mentioned. RW1, has

conceded that he did not verify genuineness of Driving Licence

of Respondent No. 1, from the ofÏce of Registering Authority,

conceded, before he employed him, as his driver on his truck.

The person checked, his skill, has not been examined. As

conceded by him, said person neither possessed, requisite

qualification for testing skill of drivers, nor he has been

authorized to do so, by any authority. There is no dispute that

the initial onus is on insurance company, to prove that owner of

the offending vehicle did not exercise due care and caution or

failed in his duty, to check, to ensure that he possesses valid

driving licence, before employment of driver, but respondent

Insurance company in the instant case has established, by

documentary evidence that respondent No. 1, did not possess

DIVYANSHI

2026.05.14 17:00

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO-3140-2008 (O&M) 3 of 8

valid licence and respondent No. 2, was negligent, in checking

his efÏciency, to drive the truck (Trolla), and has failed, to ensure

before his employment that he possessed, the valid driving

licence. Since respondent No. 2 has handed, over his truck to

unskilled person. In breach of terms and conditions of policy, as

such respondent Insurance company cannot be burdened, with

liability to pay compensation, to the claimant, for injuries

sustained by him, in the accident. The facts and circumstances

of the authorities relied upon by learned counsel for respondent

no. 2, are quite distinguishable, from those of the case in hand,

wherein driving licence of respondent no. apparently appears,

to be fake. In 2004 (1) CLT SC 1 (Supra), Driving licence, was

renewed after expiry of date of validity, however since accident

took place during validity period of policy, therefore in view of

law, laid down by Hon'ble Apex, court in 2001 ACJ SC