FAO No.1088 of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1088 of 1997 Date of Decision. 20.07.2010 United India Insurance Company having its Regional Office, Sector-8, Chandigarh through its Regional Office, Sector-8, Chandigarh through its Manager .........Appellant Versus Gurmeet Kaur widow of Ajaib Singh son of Sukhram Singh and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjeev Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. In this case, the insurer pleads exclusion of liability on the ground that a local commissioner, who was appointed to undertake a visit to Patna, obtained a report from the DTO that the licence had not been issued and therefore, it was proved that the driving licence was fake. The issue of mode of proof would assume significance because the owner's counsel was also present at the time when the commissioner visited the office of the licensing authority. The report of the local commissioner states that the DTO was unavailable due to some other official work and he merely made available a certificate issued in his hand that no licence had been issued by FAO No.1088 of 1997 -2- their office. If the commissioner had inspected the record himself and obtained first hand information about the unavailability of an entry of the name of the driver against the relevant licence number, then his report would assume significance. By the way he has carried out the work, it also means that a local commissioner has gone all the way to collect the certificate and produced in Court. The same could have been done even by Judge securing a certificate from the DTO. It will only be a meaningless formality, for a certificate cannot obtain any evidentiary value. Without the person, who issued the certificate stands the test of cross-examination. A certificate is not statutorily provided and therefore, cannot partake the character of a public document on which the reliance could be made without examining the person, who had issued it. 2. The Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the insurer had not discharged its burden. There is no scope for interference. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 20, 2010 Pankaj*