UMA NATH SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD on Crl. Misc. No. 8372-CII of 2005 (application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal). On due consideration, the application is allowed, for the reasons given therein, and the delay of 91 days in filing the appeal is, hereby condoned.
(2.) THIS FAO arises out of a judgment/award dated 9.4.2004 passed by learned Presiding Officer, MACT, Ropar, in MACT Case No. 15 of 20.2.2002, awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the injured claimant. In this owner's appeal, the only submission of learned counsel is that the onus was cast on the Insurance Company to prove that the Driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid licence on the date of accident, once the employer exercised due diligence and care in appointing the Driver. Learned counsel referred to a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court reported National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, 2004(2) RCR(Civil) 114 : AIR 2004 SC 1531 to substantiate his contention.
(3.) WE have carefully considered the submission so also perused the record, including the statement of the owner of the offending vehicle, and we do not find any force in the submission. It is obvious from the cross-examination of the owner of the vehicle that he has not assertively stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was in possession of a valid licence. It also appears that he had casually once or twice verified about the validity of the licence. The said cross-examination of the owner, on reproduction, reads as under :- "No receipt was obtained by me after paying the salary to Amrik Singh. The driving licence was issued by Licencing Authority, Delhi. I do not know whether the said driving licence was valid upto year 1999. I have not verified the driving licence from Licencing Authority, Delhi. I have checked the driving licence once or twice, after about one year from appointment. After the year 1999, I have not checked the driving licence of Amrik Singh. I do not know whether Amrik Singh was having any licence from 1999 to 28.8.2001 or not. It is wrong that I am deposing falsely." Thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal against the recovery right given to the Insurance Company. Hence this FAO No. 2016 of 2005 stands dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.;