UMA NATH SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS FAO arises out of a judgment dated 17.9.2005 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, in MACT Case No. 99-MACT of 2003, awarding a sum of Rs. 8,38,576/- in a death case, while holding the appellant-owner of the vehicle liable for 50% contributory negligence.
(2.) IT appears that the Insurance Company has been granted liberty to recover the amount from the appellant-owner. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the award, mainly on the ground that the owner of the vehicle exercised care and due diligence in regard to holding of a valid driving licence by the driver at the time of joining his employment. Learned counsel also referred to a judgment on this point. However, from the statements of competent Transport Authorities of Agartala and Kamrup, we find that the Tribunal is correct in holding that the original driving licence was not validly issued. The report of the Local Commissioner, an investigator on behalf of the Insurance Company, indicates that the original driving licence No. 322716/ASK/90 issued in the name of the driver-Sanjay Kumar was not issued by the Licensing Authority, Kamrup. Hon'ble the Apex Court in a judgment reported in New India Insurance Company, Shimla v. Kamla and others, 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 716 : AIR 2001 SC 1419 has held that the renewal of a fake driving licence cannot transform its fake character. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is also barred by an inordinate delay of 209 days, without a plausible explanation. Hence, the FAO No. 3155 of 2006 is, hereby, dismissed on the ground of delay and merit, both. Appeal dismissed.;