Judgment:
ORDER
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. These appeals (F.A.O. Nos. 49 and 51 of 2001) are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in two different M.A.C.T. cases arising out of the same accident.
2. The appellant-Insurance Company had raised a plea that the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle was fake. The Tribunal has not accepted the plea and awards have been passed against the appellant-Insurance Company also and hence, these appeals have been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the licence was not proved to be fake. It may be stated that it is for the Insurance Company to prove that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. Reliance can be placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Narcinva V. Kamal and another v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and others, 1985 A.C.J. 397.
4. In this case, the appellant has examined RW-1 Rajinder Singh, Licensing Clerk, D.T.O. Office, Amristar before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced a copy of the deposition of the said witness. The same is taken on record in F.A.O. No. 49 of 2001.
5. The licence which was produced in the case was having number 13946 and it was dated February 10,1993. The witness has stated that he has brought the summoned record from February 8, 1993 to February 10, 1993. Licence No. 38946 was not issued by their office on February 10, 1993. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the register which he has brought contained the entries upto 18756 dated February 10, 1993. There was no certificate on the register. The register was also not page marked. There was no certificate at the close of the register. The witness has further stated that he could not tell that from 18756 onwards how many entries were made or licence (licences) has been issued on February 10, 1993. He has also admitted that the register relating to the entries from 18757 to 20838 is not traceable in the office. This shows that though the witness has come to show that the licence was not issued, he could not produce the relevant register in which an entry regarding licence bearing Serial No. 18946 could be traced. The relevant register is, therefore, not on record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the certificate has been issued by the Licensing Authority. However, this certificate is of no consequence if no evidence is available on which this certificate was based.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that so many licences could not be issued on one date. If is for the Insurance Company to prove that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. When the other register after the entries 18756 was not available, it can not be said that the Insurance Company has discharged its burden as is required in the case of Narcinva V. Kamal and another (supra).
8. No other ground has been argued.
9. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Both these appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
10. Appeals dismissed.