IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.950 of 1995 Date of decision:25.08.2010 Oriental Insurance Company ....Appellant versus Smt. Veena and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- Present: Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.6. ----- 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 in appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The Insurance Company is therefore in an appeal on a plea that at least recovery rights must have been granted to the insurer for violation of terms of the policy. 2. As regards the contention that the driver did not have a valid driving licence, the insurer was relying upon a letter sent by the private investigator of the Insurance Company that the licence had not been issued in the name of the driver by the licensing authority. Neither the original register nor any person from the licensing authority had been examined before the Tribunal to substantiate the contents of the letter. Letter by investigator of the Insurance Company can be a starting point FAO No.950 of 1995 - 2 - for an insurer to contend that there was no valid driving licence but it must build upon it and secure appropriate evidence to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. This the insurer failed to do. 3. The burden of proof for establishing that the owner had committed a breach is always on the insurer and the burden had not been discharged. 4. The award is sustained and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.08.2010 sanjeev