FAO No.1980 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1980 of 2001 Date of Decision. 08.09.2010 The National Insurance Company Ltd. SCO No.337-340, Sector 35, Chandigarh through its Asstt. Admn Officer and others ......Appellants Versus Siri Krishan son of S. Maru Ram, resident of village Bhanglora, Tehsil and District Gurgaon and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. None 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. The insurance company is on appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the driving licence was proved to be fake but even then the insurance company was not given the right of recovery against the insured. Before the Tribunal, RW-1 Bhagwati Parshad had been examined, who was a clerk from the office of the RTA, Jaipur. The copy of the licence had been produced by the driver, which was said to have been issued from Jaipur in DL No.2950. The evidence of the official witness was that the it had been issued in the name of Rajvir and not in the name of Chandgi. The Tribunal rejected this evidence on the ground that there was a FAO No.1980 of 2001 -2- pre-fix JPR-88 which ought to have meant that other than the office from which record was sent, there could have some other office at Jaipur and record from that office had not been produced. It was a needless suspicion by the Tribunal, which had no basis through the evidence elicited from Bhagwati Parshad. The finding of the Tribunal that the insurer had not discharged its burden is erroneous. The insurer had proved the fact that the particular driving licence which the driver was relying on was fake. 2. There was no evidence from the owner explaining the discrepancy. The award of the Tribunal would, therefore, require to be modified to make it liable only to satisfy the claim of the claimants and securing a right of recovery from the insured. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 08, 2010 Pankaj*