Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bhag Singh and Others

M. Jeyapaul, J

The insurance company has preferred the present appeal challenging the award passed by the Tribunal. It is contended that 5th respondent, Lokesh Sharma, was not holding any valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation, it is submitted.

RW-1 Parkash Chander, Assistant attached to Regional Transport Authority, Panchkula, was examined and through him, Exhibit RW-1/1 the driving licence No. 220/2008 issued on 8.4.2008 was produced. He has also deposed that RW-1/1, though legally issued, was cancelled as the address furnished by the 5th respondent was found to be false. It is found that the original driving licence was issued way-back in the year 2006 itself. The record relating to the licence originally issued in the year 2006 was not produced to establish that a wrong address was given by the 5th respondent herein. On 8.4.2008, duplicate driving licence No. 220/2008 was issued but it is found that the 5th respondent had furnished an incorrect address. That was the sole reason for cancellation of the duplicate licence granted on 8.4.2008. The fact remains that the accident had taken place on 13.1.2007, long prior to the issuance of the duplicate driving licence on 8.4.2008. Further, the order of cancellation had been passed by the Regional Transport Authority on the technical ground that the address was not properly furnished by the 5th respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant had not established the incorrect address, if any, furnished originally by the 5th respondent while obtaining driving licence way-back in the year 2006 and that the proper licence issued even as per version of RW-1 was in vogue on the date of accident and it was cancelled on 9.5.2008, well after the accident. I do not find that the driver had driven the vehicle without a valid driving licence. The Tribunal has rightly held that the appellant-insurance company is liable to answer the claim. I do not find any merit in the present appeal and therefore, the same stands dismissed.