IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.546 of 1993 Date of decision: 19.07.2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Satwinder Singh and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.553 of 1993 The New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Gurcharan Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Deepak Suri, Advocate, and Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. Both the appeals are connected and are taken up together. 2. Both the appeals are by the Insurance Company pleading that the insurer will not be liable since the driver did not have a valid driving licence. In this case, the owner of the vehicle said that he had seen the driver having a driving licence. If the Insurance Company FAO No.546 of 1993 - 2 - pleads exclusion of liability, the burden is heavily on the insurer. By the only fact that the driver remained ex parte, it cannot be taken that the Insurance Company's duty is discharged when the driver did not produce the driving licence. This consequence will follow only if the driver is served with a notice to produce the licence and he did not produce it. There is no reason to exonerate the Insurance Company from making it liable for satisfying the award duly indemnified the insured also. 3. The Insurance Company also contended that the vehicle was said to have been sold on 31.08.1988 when the accident took place on 07.12.1988. There had been no intimation about the transfer. It was in evidence by the owner of the vehicle that the transfer had been duly notified by notices and they were already tendered as evidence before the Tribunal. The intimation was spoken to by the owner/Managing Director of the Company that owned the vehicle. The Tribunal has accepted the contention regarding the intimation to the Insurance Company. 4. There is no scope for interfering with the awards. The appeals are dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 19.07.2010 sanjeev