IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2390 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision:27.05.2011 Mohan Singh ..Appellant versus Gajinder Kaur and others ....Respondents II. FAO No.2480 of 1996 (O&M) Manjit Singh ..Appellant versus Gajinder Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the appellant in FAO No.2390 of 1996. Mr. J.S.Bhatia, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No.2480 of 1996 and for respondent No.3 in FAO No.2390 of 1996. Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate, for the Oriental Insurance Company. None for respondents 1 and 2 in FAO No.2390 of 1996 and for respondents 1 to 3 in FAO No.2480 of 1996. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. Both the appeals are at the instance of the driver and owner of the vehicle which was involved in a motor accident. The issue framed at the trial was whether the driver had a driving licence. At the trial, it FAO No.2390 of 1996 (O&M) - 2 - was attempted to be shown by the Insurance Company by summoning a Clerk from the SDM's office which was the licensing authority for the particular copy of licence produced before the Tribunal that their office had not issued the said licence. The Tribunal, therefore, exonerated the Insurance Company and made the owner and the driver liable for the claim arising out the accident. 2. The learned counsel states that there was no pleading denying the validity of the driving licence. I cannot take this to be a valid argument especially in a case where the Tribunal had framed an issue relating to the possession or otherwise of a driving licence and the parties understood this to mean whether the licence was genuine or not. Consequently, the Insurance Company had gone as far as to summon a witness and gave evidence to the effect that the particular licence with the details shown had not been issued by their office. This, in my view, would conclude the issue as regards the violation of terms of policy and if neither the owner nor the driver had any rebuttal evidence to discredit the testimony of the witness, who was summoned, the liability cast on the owner and the driver cannot be found fault with. 3. The award is confirmed and the appeals filed by the driver as well as the owner are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 27.05.2011 sanjeev