Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

34. This court marked the DL as secondary evidence as a Ex.R.4. In the Ex.R.2 the name of the respondent No.2 is appeared as Mr. Nikethan and the DL.No.TN2720140001119 for LMV, MCWG, HTV and same is valid till 20.11.2022. The respondent No.1 argued that accused itself pleaded guilty and paid the fine for the offence punishable u/s 3(1) r/w 181 of M.V.Act and it was fake DL. No doubt the driver / accused has pleaded guilty and paid the fine for the offence punishable u/s 3(1) r/w 181 of MV.Act. But it is not conclusive proof that he has no DL at the time of accident. Only on that reason it cannot be considered as fake DL. But with regarding to his defence the respondent No.1 has not made effort to examine the RTO. He got issued the notice to RTO, but he has not taken proper steps. He has also not made any effort to obtain the extract of DL from concerned office. When this court has accepted the secondary evidence, the burden to prove as it is fake DL is shifted on respondent No.1. In this regard he had filed application u/o 16 Rule 1 of CPC to issue summons to the RTO, Slaem, Tamil Nadu. This court allowed the same and issued summons but summons not served. But thereafter respondent No.1 has not taken steps. The RPAD returned as incorrect address. Thereafter he has not made effort to trace out the correct address. Therefore, on perusal of Ex.R.4 clearly reveals that the driver had valid DL from 21.11.2017 to 20.11.2022 (for transport) and 21.11.2017 to 06.04.2023 (for Non-Transport). It clearly reveals that at the time of accident accused was having valid DL. The respondent NO.1 has also not challenged the order of this Tribunal on IA No.10.