Judgment:
M.L. Singhal, J.
1. On 2nd May, 1992, Dalbir Singh along with Naresh Kumar and Manoj Kumar left for village Gaddi Kher on scooter No. HYR 9340 from village Lakhan Majra. Dalbir Singh was driving the scooter. At about 9 p.m. when they reached near village Bahoo Jamalpur near Athgama Dharamshala, truck bearing No. HR 20-4587 being driven rashly and negligently by Prithi Singh came from Hissar side at a very fast speed and dashed against the scooter. As a result of the impact, Dalbir Singh died at the spot while Manoj Kumar and Naresh Kumar sustained serious injuries. Manoj Kumar and Naresh Kumar injured were taken to Medical College Hospital, Rohtak. Case FIR No. 103 dated 3.5.1992 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak Under Sections 279/337/304- A IPC against Prithi Singh, driver of the offending truck.
2. This accident gave rise to three claim petitions namely MACT No. 64 of 1992, 89 of 1992 and 90 of 1992. In case No. 64/1992, Smt. Bala Devi widow of Dalbir Singh, her minor children, her father-in-law and mother-in-law were the claimants.
3. In Case No. 89/1992, Naresh Kumar injured was the claimant.
4. In Case No. 90/.1992, Manoj Kumar injured was the claimant.
5. As these claim petitions arose out of one and the same accident involving the same question of law and fact to be determined all these MACT cases were consolidated by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak. Through consolidated judgment passed in MACT case No. 64-1992, all these MACT cases were disposed of. A sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- was awarded as compensation ro Smt. Bala Devi and other claimants. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- was awarded as compensation to Naresh Kumar injured for personal injury suffered by him in this accident. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded as compensation to Manoj Kumar injured for personal injury suffered by him in this accident. Besides usual interest was awarded to them from the date of claim applications till realisation.
6. Aggrieved from this consolidated award delivered by MACT, Rohtak, three FAOs have come up before this Court namely 1613 of 1994, 1526 of 1994 and 1527 of 1994 filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. that it had been specifically pleaded by the said Company in their written statement that Prithi Singh did not hold any valid driving licence. Driving licence being held by him was fake and had not been issued by the Licencing Authority, Cuttak. Capt. Nirmal Kumar, RW2 who is the Administrative Officer of the National Insurance Co. Ltd., Cuttak has stated that no driving licence had been issued in the name of Prithi Singh son of Jagar Singh. Harbans Lai, RW3 stated that he visited the office of Licencing Authority, Tohana and found that no driving licence had ever been issued to Prithi Singh. Case of Prithi Singh and the owner of the offending truck was that the original driving licence was issued by the Licencing Authority, Cuttak and, thereafter it was got renewed from Licencing Authority, Tohana. Atam Parkash, RW1 stated that the original driving licence had been issued by the Licensing Authority, Cuttack. It was renewed by Licencing Authority, Tohana. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-Company that no Licencing Authority has the right or power to renew a fake licence. According to Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act any Licencing Authority may at a claim made to renew any driving licence issued under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act with effect from the date of its expiry. Renewal can take place only when there is driving licence issued earlier. If there is no driving licence issued earlier, there can no renewal. If there is no driving licence issued earlier, the factum of renewal would be redundant. Capt. Nirmal Kumar, RW2, Investigator appointed by the National insurance Co. Ltd. verified from the office of Regional Transport Authority, Cuttak that no driving licence bearing No. P-4828/85-CTS had ever been issued to any body by the Licensing Authority, Cuttak.
7. In our opinion, the MACT, Rohtak has failed to record the relevant and admissible evidence on this point. MACT should have summoned some official of the office of Regional Transport Authority, Cuttak and put it to him whether driving licence bearing No. P-4828/85-CTS had ever been issued by Regional Transport Authority, Cuttak and if the same had been issued by the Licencing Authority, Cuttak, whether the same had been issued to Prithi Singh. In our opinion, the evidence recorded by MACT on this point does not touch the core of this issue. We, therefore, remand the case to the MACT on this limited point. We direct the MACT to record evidence on this point to be led by the National Insurance Co. Ltd., the owner and driver. We direct the MACT to record its finding on this issue and transmit its finding on this issue together with the evidence recorded on this issue. MACT may issue some commission and direct the commission to go to Cuttak and record the necessary evidence. National Insurance Co. Ltd. will bear the expenses incurred in arranging the presence of the Advocate by the driver/owner at Cuttak which shall be determined by the MACT. Parties shall appear before the MACT on 10.10.1996. MACT will send its finding to this Court on this issue together with the evidence recorded thereon on or before 10th of January, 1997.