CIVIL APPEAL 1622 of 2004 on 31 May 1991

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. Yes/Nojudgement. Yes/No

2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No3.Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No3.Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No

----

PRESENT: MR. VINOD CHAUDHRI,

ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT.

NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 AND 5.

MR. SUMIT SANGWAN, ADVOCAE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4.

K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL)

1. The Insurance company is on appeal challenging the liability onthe ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. At the trialthe insurance company produced the evidence of the Licencing Clerk fromthe office of Licencing Authority, Loharu and the evidence is tendered tothe effect that Licence No.51494 at S.No.416 contained an entry of renewalof the licence in the name of Sajjan Kumar S/o Jaimal C/o Vijay Singh atLoharu. The renewal contained the photograph of Sajjan Kumar. Theapplication was said to have been filed for renewal on 15.5.1998. Thedriver against whom the negligence was attributed and the case filed wasSushil Kumar S/o Jaimal Singh and the address was given as Bariwala Bilawal. The copy of the driving licence had been produced by the driver atthe trial and I have examined the same contained in the records of theTribunal. I find that the very same driving licence No.51494 has beenissued on 31.5.1991 by the Licencing Authority at Sirsa and the name givenwas Sushil Kumar. The father's name is Jaimal Singh. A contention onbehalf of the driver owner is that his name was Pohlu Ram @ Sushil Kumarand the licence had also been only in the name of Sushil Kumar, but when arenewal has been made in the register, it appears that they had carried outthe name as Sajjan Kumar. The endorsement of renewal in the licence bookwas in the name of Sushil Kumar. Even the photograph affixed in therenewal register was with reference to the very same person as found in thecopy of the licence produced by the insurance company. If there was anydifference between photographs found in the renewal register and the copyof the licence book produced by the driver, the difference must have beenelicited in the evidence itself. The insurance company rest contended onbringing out a discrepancy in the name to affirm that a licence had beenissued to someone else other than the driver, I have no doubt in my viewthat it was an obvious mistake because the father's name tallies and the copyof the licence produced itself shall be that it had been originally issued onlyin the name of Sushil Kumar. The witness RW2 who also admitted that theregister brought by him contained a reference to issue of a licence No.51494as having been made by the Licencing Authority at Sirsa and the insurancecompany must have still taken steps to produce the original register from thelicencing authority at Sirsa to show any discrepancy if there existed. Amere production of the renewal register in such a case where the mistakenidentity was sought to be urged, in my view, will not be sufficient. It cannot be taken that burden of proof of establishing that the driver did not have thevalid driving licence was properly discharged by the insurer. I will hold onthe other hand that the driver's name found in the register produced by thewitness was really making reference only to the driver who is arrayed as arespondent and referred to by the name Pohlu Ram S/o Jaimal.

The award is confirmed and the appeal by the insurancecompany is dismissed.

December 22, 2010 Gulati

(K.KANNAN)

JUDGE