MAHESH GROVER, J. - (1.) IN this appeal by the Insurance Company against award dated 15.6.1993 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter described as 'the Tribunal') passed in M.A.C.T. Case No. 40 of 11.6.1992, the only challenge made is qua the finding recorded by the Tribunal pertaining to the validity of the driving licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle and fastening of the liability upon it as a consequence thereof.
(2.) SHRI Neeraj Khanna, learned counsel for the appellant contended that it had been established on the record that the licence was not issued in the name of Satnam Singh-respondent No. 7 and rather, it stood in the name of one Ashwani Kumar. Reference was made to report Exhibit R1 pertaining to Driving Licence No. 8263 of 1989-90. On the other hand, the contention of Shri Khanna was sought to be repelled by the learned counsel for the respondents, who placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported as 2001(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 239, United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Surjit Singh Sodhi, to say that the onus of proving the invalidity of the driving licence has not been discharged by the appellant effectively and that mere examination of a Clerk from the office of the Licensing Authority is not sufficient.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that the appeal does not deserve to succeed. A perusal of the record, particularly the statement of RW1-Satnam Singh reveals that licence marked E2 had been issued in his name, which bore the signatures of one Karam Singh, the then District Transport Officer, Hoshiarpur along with the seal of the concerned office. This licence had been further renewed up to 21.12.1995 by the office of District Transport Officer, Jalandhar. In contradistinction to this, there is Exhibit R1 indicating that licence No. 8263 of 1989-90 was not issued in the name of Satnam Singh. Exhibit R1 is purported to have been made on the basis of record, but the same witness appearing as RW1 has stated that he had no knowledge of the genuineness of the licence as he was not posted in the said office at the relevant time. No other record or evidence was adduced by the appellant to prove this issue.;