FAO No.3729 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3729 of 1999 Date of Decision.19.07.2010 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, SCO 177-178, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through Sh. R.K. Sharma, Deputy Manager .........Appellant Versus Jagdish Chander son of Sh. Kalu Ram, caste Kashyap Rajput, resident of Roshanpur Road, near Jai Gurdev School, Ismailabad, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra and others .......Respondents 2. FAO No.3730 of 1999 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, SCO 177-178, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through Sh. R.K. Sharma, Deputy Manager .........Appellant Versus Nirja Gupta alias Nirja Jindal widow of Sushil Kumar son of Gopi Ram, resident of village Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra now resident of H.No.132/13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra and others .......Respondents 3. FAO No.3731 of 1999 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, SCO 177-178, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through Sh. R.K. Sharma, Deputy Manager .........Appellant Versus Smt. Ganga Devi widow of Shri Gupi Ram and mother of deceased Sushil Kumar son of Sh. Gopi Ram and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. R.M. Suri, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. FAO No.3729 of 1999 -2- 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. All the three appeals arise out of same cause of action and are being disposed with a common order. The insurance company's defence that the driving licence was not genuine was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that New Delhi, the place at which the driving licence was said to have been issued contained several zones and the production of the register from one of the zones namely Anand Vihar was not sufficient to hold that the insurer had discharged its burden of proof. The learned counsel, appearing for the insurer however would point out to the effect that the insurance company had moved an application before the Tribunal seeking for disclosure of information by the driver of the specific zone issuing authority at Delhi from which he had claimed that he had obtained the licence. The reply was given by Roop Singh, the driver that the driving licence with the particular licence number had been issued from Anand Vihar, New Delhi. It was on the basis of such information that the document was summoned and was demonstrated that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. In my view, this aspect has not been noticed by the Tribunal and it has made a wrong reference that it could have been issued from any other zone. 2. It becomes clear, therefore, that there had been a breach FAO No.3729 of 1999 -3- of condition in the terms of policy and the insurer cannot be made liable for the compensation. The liability to satisfy the claimants would still subsist and the appeals are allowed to satisfy the claim under the award with a right of recovery against the insured. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 19, 2010 Pankaj*