Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 919 (PNJ)

PUNJAB TRACTORS LIMITED v. HARINDER SINGH

2014-05-28

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Jitendra Chauhan, J. The present appeal has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle, challenging the impugned award dated 7.10.1999, passed by the by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala (in short 'the Tribunal'). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal erred in fastening the liability upon the appellant. He further submits that neither a specific issue was framed, nor any representative from the Licensing Authority was summoned to establish the authenticity of the driving licence. In the absence thereof, the learned Tribunal erred in recording the findings of fact. However, the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor at the time of occurrence. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.4-Insurance Company submits that the original licence was issued in the year 1988, which was subsequently renewed on 6.8.1994. The accident took place on 10.5.1996. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that driver Kuldeep Singh was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the tractor. He prays for the dismissal of the appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. Vide order dated 26.5.2011, the appellant was directed to hand over the copy of the driving licence to the Insurance Company so that it can get the verification done from the competent authority. On 27.3.2014, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the driving licence handed over to him does not bear the details of the renewal done in the year 1994, therefore, the verification could not be done. The appellant undertook to supply the complete details of the licence. The original record of the DTO, Patiala is stated to be destroyed due to flood. On this account, the complete details was sought, but the same was not supplied till date. The licence exhibited by the appellant as Ex. R-3 is meant for driving car and scooter only. The driving licence, which is duplicate, produced before this Court was not produced by the appellant during trial for the best reasons known to him. There is no endorsement on Ex. R-3, to drive a tractor. As per the Motor Vehicles Act, a special endorsement is required to be made with regard to the driving of the tractor. The driving licence, which is duplicate, produced before this Court was not produced by the appellant during trial for the best reasons known to him. There is no endorsement on Ex. R-3, to drive a tractor. As per the Motor Vehicles Act, a special endorsement is required to be made with regard to the driving of the tractor. The copy of the licence produced before this Court was not produced before the Tribunal and the same is duplicate one. No report with regard to its genuineness of the driving licence is available. 6. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 7. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal, be sent to the Tribunal for disposal according to law.