JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Puri, J.: (Oral) - The New India Assurance Company has preferred the present appeal against Award dated 04.08.1994 passed by Shri R. C. Bansal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak. 2. Briefly stated, Ramesh son of Chander filed a claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs on account of death of his son Sanjay who was aged between 13 to 16 years, in a motor vehicular accident. 3. As per the case of claimant, on 01.03.1992, Sanjay was going on foot on Jhajjar Road, Rohtak and was crushed under the wheels of mini truck (Swaraj Mazda) bearing registration No. PB-12-T-7816. 4. The claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company and others taking plea that the driver was not holding the valid driving licence. 5. The learned Tribunal, after adjudication, accepted the claim petition and granted a sum of Rs.30,000/- along with interest @ 12 % per annum. 6. The Insurance Company has challenged the said Award on the ground that driver was not holding the valid driving licence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that driver Sajjan Singh was not holding a valid driving licence. The appellant produced RW-2 Hans Raj, Senior Clerk, Licensing Authority, Shimla, who had deposed that Sajjan Singh was not issued any driving licence Exhibit R-1 and there was no renewal of that licence. It was further stated that learned Tribunal has simply awarded the compensation against the Insurance Company on the ground of renewal by District Transport Officer, Ropar. He has further contended that once the original licence is forged, its subsequent renewal does not make it a valid document. To support this contention, he has relied upon authority “New India Assurance Co. vs. Kamla” 2001 (3) RCR (Civil) 716. 10. The contention raised by learned counsel for appellant carries weight and has to be accepted. The Insurance Company has discharged its onus that Sajjan Singh driver was not holding any valid driving licence by producing RW-2 Hans Raj. This witness has categorically stated that he has brought the relevant register from the years 1977 to 1982 and Exhibit R-1 was not issued by his office. He has further stated that there is no renewal dated 16.01.1981 by his office. 9. This witness has categorically stated that he has brought the relevant register from the years 1977 to 1982 and Exhibit R-1 was not issued by his office. He has further stated that there is no renewal dated 16.01.1981 by his office. 9. In view of the above discussion, the appeal stands partly accepted and judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide which Insurance Company has been held liable, stands set-aside. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the amount has been paid to the claimants. In these circumstances, the Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the amount from owner of the offending vehicle. Disposed of. ----------------