Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Counsel for the insurance company further submitted that the driving licence subsequently produced by the driver Hari Om, purportedly issued from the State of Manipur, is a procured document obtained at a belated stage only to evade liability. It was argued that the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the said licence raise serious doubts about its authenticity, particularly in view of the fact that the driver admittedly belongs to Uttar Pradesh and was residing in Faridabad at the time of the accident. It was also contended that the driver attempted to mislead the investigation by falsely projecting one Kuldeep as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, MACT No. 451/2018 Shubham Pandey Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 8 of 34 (rpt) which further undermines the credibility of his defence.

(b) Per contra, the driver of the offending vehicle entered the witness box as R1W1 and produced his driving licence, which has been exhibited as Ex. R1W1/2. The particulars of the said driving licence reveal that it was valid and effective for driving the class of vehicle involved in the accident. Counsel for the insurance company objected to the said driving licence on the ground that it is a procured document, allegedly prepared on false particulars at a belated stage of investigation only to escape liability. It was further argued that the driver did not possess any valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Doubt was also raised on the ground that the driving licence had been issued by the Transport Authority of Manipur, whereas the driver admittedly belongs to Uttar Pradesh and was allegedly residing in Faridabad at the time of the accident.

(c) During cross-examination, several questions were put to R1W1 arising out of the suspicion regarding the authenticity of the driving licence. The witness / driver Hari Om stated that he had stayed in Manipur for about seven months, though he could not specify the exact period or address. He admitted that he had not brought any documentary proof to show his residence in Manipur. He further stated that he had gone to Manipur in the year 2015, but could not recall the exact date and the name of train. He denied the suggestion that he had never visited Manipur MACT No. 451/2018 Shubham Pandey Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 28 of 34 (rpt) or that Ex. R1W1/2 is a forged, fabricated or procured document.