Mahesh Grover, J. - (1.) The appellant, 101 of 22.10.1998. Libra Bus Service Pvt. Ltd., the owner of the bus bearing registration No. PB 13-C 2. On 7.9.2005, a learned single Judge 4667 which was involved in a motor vehi- of this court passed the following order in cle accident occurred on 12.9.1998 causing the appeal: death of one Raj Kumar filed an appeal against common award dated 1.3.2002 "Counsel for both the parties are agreed passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribu- that so far as claimants are concerned, nal, Sangrur (for short, 'the Tribunal') in qua them order passed regarding pay- M.A.C. Case Nos. 72 of 25.11.1998 and ment of compensation be deemed to have become final and be not disturbed to that extent. Appellant filed this appeal against the award dated 1.3.2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sang- rur (in short 'the Tribunal') vide which compensation amount of Rs. 2,56,000 was granted in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, on account of death of Raj Kumar. The Tribunal by giving finding that driver employed by the appellant was not having a valid driving licence, has fastened liability upon the appellant. It has been ordered that amount be first paid by the insurance company and then the insurance company be at liberty to recover the same from the owner/appellant. Counsel for the appellant states that on a very sketchy evidence led by insurance company, a finding has been given that the respondent No. 6 was not possessing a valid driving licence when accident had taken place. By referring to ratio of judgment in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC), counsel states that it was incumbent upon insurance company, to prove further that the insured was guilty of wilful breach of conditions of insurance policy. Counsel further states that to the same effect is ratio of judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC). Confronting with this situation Mr. Pab- bi, very fairly states that matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case, and also ratio of judgments, referred to above, this appeal is allowed, award qua the claimants is maintained, however, to decide as to who is responsible for making the payment, matter is remitted to the Tribunal, to decide it afresh on the point as to whether the in- sured has committed any wilful breach of conditions of insurance policy or not. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 3.10.2005. The Tribunal need not to issue any notice of pending litigation to the claimants."
(2.) Thereafter, the Tribunal disposed of the matter on 18.9.2006 and re-determined the issue which was entrusted to it regarding the insured (appellant) having committed wilful breach of conditions of insurance policy.
(3.) In its order dated 18.9.2006, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that appellant had produced fake documents Exhs. C1 and C2 as also the entries of the register were fabricated. The driving licence was also held to be fake and it was held that the appellant had committed a wilful breach of the insurance policy. Paras 15 and 16 of the above order are reproduced below: "(15) Thus, taking into consideration the fact that the owner of the bus produced fake documents, Exhs. C1 and C2, on the file as well as the entry in the register shows that something has been removed from the top of the entry which is meant for pasting of photograph and address of respondent No. 1 is not the same as find mention in the entry as well as it is not the case of respondent No. 1 that he got ever issued the driving licence from Allahabad, it cannot be said from these documents as well as from the report, Exh. R4/A, which was prepared from the entries in the register, the respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence. As stated, when the insured, i.e., respondent No. 2 is guilty of producing fake documents in the court, the onus placed on the insurer that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise due care at the time of employing the driver, stands discharged. (16) As such the insured has committed a wilful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy, i.e., employing the driver having no driving licence and has not taken reasonable care at the time of employing the driver and, as such, is liable to make the payment to the insurance company." By filing CM. No. 25312-13-CII of 2006, the appellant has now sought to place on record its objections against the above reproduced findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal.;