FAOlloA148 v. AppeUant

first lyrenewedin t he nam e of Ram Pal we 23102002 upt o150005 andlat eronit was againrenewedwef 21102005upt o15102008 Hehas t hatfor t he renewalof t he licence no NOC is askedbyt he renewal fromt he bywhich licence was issued and he has also provedt he relevantent riesof t he renewalas ExR4 and Ex5 He has adm it t edt hat t he licence cannot be renewedwit hout no NOC fromt helicencing No Vishal Nagpal W21owner oft he t ruck in his st at em ent while his affidavit ExW21A has deposedt hat Nol Ram Pal was as driverbyhim in t hevear 2004 andhe had checkedhis drivinglicence andhadverifledfrom him aboutt he validit yof t he sam e He had also verified t hat t he drivinglicence of No from Aut horit yPanipatand t he saidlicencewas found validlyrenewedfrom t he and he him self had also assuredaboutt he com pet encyof t hedrivingabilit yoft he Nol Ram Pal byt akingt het est driveandhe foundhim com pet entin t his regard I t m ay 6nt herbe observedt hatt hedrivinglicencefor HTN could not be issuedbyt heDT0 concem ed Thereforet hest at em entofMaheshKum ar is ofno consequenceMunish Kum arwas not askedeven a singlequest ion The law is well set t ledt hat a fakelicenceissuedbyt helicencing by way of it s renewal does not becom ea legaland valid one Rawat Seem a 2013.04.11 14: 07 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh However in t he presentcase as discussedabove RW2 Vishal Nagpal JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 59 0 FAOlVoA148 of2008 5 1 1 owner of t he t ruck has t hat he had Nol as driver aft er veriflcat ionof t he drivinglicenceof t he No and as has been by RW3 drivinglicence of No hadbeenrenewedbyt heLicencingAut horit yPanipaton t wo occasions So No aRerfull verificat ion and inquirieshad Nol and t hus t herewas no breachof Sect ion 149 circum st ancest heinsurance axiil of t he Mot or Vehicle Act 1988 and in t hese com panywould not be absolvedof it s liabilit y as laid downin Prem Kum ari and ot herscase Thus in Vlew oft he abovediscussionit could be safeI yobserved t hat t he claim ant swere right lyheld ent it led t o receive t he am ount of Rs3900001 and Rs300001 and t he Nos3 and 4 are j oint lyand liable t o pay t hesam e t hought heflrst chargeshalwaysrem ain wit h t he Orient alI nsurance Lim it ed findingsret um edbyt he Tribunal on issuesNo2 and 3 st andsafflrm ed Findingno m erit s in t he presentappealst he sam e 1 0 0 eD I Z r I 08 7 Z90 Lle dism issed 10102010 MAMTAI I lJV 0 DP7289 761 7618 7 D Rawat Seem a 2013.04.11 14: 07 True Scanned Copy Of The l Original PHHC,Chandigarh JUDGE JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document