FAO No.3066 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3066 of 1996 Date of Decision. 31.08.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited through its Manager at Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Sham Singh alias Som Singh alias Sham Lal and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. V. Chaudhari, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. None for respondent No.4. 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. The insurance company is challenging the issue of liability and quantum. As regards the liability, the attempt was to show that the licence, which was said to have been issued by the Licensing Authority at Guwahati and the renewal, which was said to have been made at Karnal were not genuine and that had been brought through the evidence of a retired police officer whom the insurance company assigned to investigate. An investigation report of such a person could have no value before the Court at all. The investigation at FAO No.3066 of 1996 -2- best could be starting point for an insurer to take a responsible plea and then secure further evidence on the basis of such report. It is the Court's duty to decide whether a licence is genuine or not and such a judicial function cannot be abdicated to a retired police official. I will place no reliance on such report or evidence of a private investigator of the insurance company. If the document and the evidence of the investigator of the insurance company are to be eschewed, there exists no issue for consideration. The insurance company would also contend that the compensation awarded for the injuries is excessive and out of proportion to what the law permits of and seeks for permission for challenging the quantum. Such a prayer seems to have been brought for the first time before this Court. Post award, an insurance company cannot seek for such a permission, for an issue of collusion is a point of fact, which must be taken at the trial or at any rate before a judgment is pronounced by the Tribunal. I would not permit the insurance company to urge for such a plea in the absence of permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 31, 2010 Pankaj*