- (1.)THESE appeals are directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar dated 13/8/2007 by which as many as twelve claim petitions were decided simultaneously.
(2.)LEARNED counsel for the appellants has assailed only the finding of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.3, which was whether the driving license of driver-respondent No.1-Budha Ram was genuine or it was forged. LEARNED counsel for the appellants has argued that the driver and owner filed an application before the Tribunal to adduce evidence that the license was renewed by the D.T.O. Sikar not once but twice after getting genuineness of the license verified from the D.T.O. Sanapati (Manipur). The application filed by the driver and owner in that behalf remained undecided and the learned Tribunal proceeded to decide Issues No.2 and 3 against driver and owner and while doing so, exonerated the insurance company from its liability to indemnify the owner to make payment of compensation to the claimants. LEARNED counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 driver and owner also supported the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. He submitted that neither any representative of the office of DTO Sikar was produced, nor the original record was examined nor the DTO Sikar was called to prove as to on what basis he renewed the license. LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that the case produced by the insurance company was based on the inspection report carried out by their investigators but nothing tangible was proved. NAW1 Subhash Mathur, representative of the insurance company in his statement has admitted that DTO Sikar has renewed the license.
Learned counsel for the insurance company has opposed the appeals disputing the aforesaid contention saying that the investigators obtained verification of DTO Sanapati, who has on his application made an endorsement of the fact that driving license No.15139/M.K. Langjam has been issued in the name of Dalip Singh and not in the name of respondent ? Budharam therefore licence produced by Budhram has rightly been held to be forged.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, I find that although it is true that the investigator of the insurance company has found that the license was verified by the DTO Sikar from DTO Sanapati who made an endorsement on the same that the license has been issued in the name of Dalip Singh and not in the name of respondent ? Budharam and on that basis the Tribunal has concluded that the license produced by Budhram is not genuine but at the same time, NAW1 Subhash Mathur representative of the insurance company has admitted in his statement that DTO Sikar has renewed the license to the driver/owner of the vehicle after verifying the same from the DTO Sanapati. The Tribunal has given opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence as well as to the insurance company to adduce the evidence in rebuttal. Since the appeals have been based on correctness of Issue No.3, finding on other issues shall remain intact. However, the Tribunal shall decide Issue No.3 again and also the application filed by the driver and owner enabling them to adduce evidence and the insurance company may also to adduce evidence in rebuttal, if any.

The matters are remanded to the Tribunal for deciding Issue No.3 alone and on that basis, make a final order as to the liability of the insurance company for indemnifying the owner for payment of compensation to the claimants.

With that direction, the appeals are disposed of.