- (1.) CM. No.23955-CII of 2012 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 13 days in preferring the appeal stands condoned and the application is allowed. FAO No.5324 of 2012
(2.) The Insurance Company aggrieved by the liability fixed on it by the Tribunal has preferred the present appeal. The Tribunal having ignored the driving licence Ex.PW1/D allegedly recovered and produced in the criminal case pending as against the driver of the offending vehicle relied upon Ex.R3, the driving licence produced by the driver of the offending vehicle who was examined as RW2 held that driver Majid who was shown as respondent No.1 in the claim petition had valid licence to drive the vehicle during the time of accident.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would vehemently submit that the Tribunal should have relied upon the evidence of RW1, a Clerk attached to the Licencing Authority who spoke about the licence Ex.PW1/D recovered during the course of investigation in the criminal case and the evidence of PW1, an Ahlmad attached to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari and held that driver Majid had a fake licence Ex.PW1/D. It is his further submission that driver Majid was shown to have been permanent resident of Saharanpur whereas the alleged driving licence Ex.R3 was issued by the Licencing Authority, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad. He also referred to the provision under Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act to bring home the point that licence Ex.R3 issued to respondent Majid by the Licencing Authority, Farrukhabad is quite invalid inasmuch as only the Licencing Authority having jurisdiction over the place of ordinary residence of the driver could issue a valid driving licence.;