F.A.O.NO. 2181 OF 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 2181 OF 2000 Date of decision:9th September, 2010 National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Samana having its Divisional Office at Patiala through its Regional Manager. .......Appellant Versus Kulwinder Kaur and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Rajat Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) The Insurance Company is on appeal contending that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. At the trial the Report of the Investigator of the Insurance Company was produced that contained an endorcement from the Licencing Authority at Guwhati that the licence had not been issued in the name of the driver. It brought out in evidence that the licence had been subsequently renewed by Licencing Authority, Patiala. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the insurer on the ground that mere production of a Report from the Investigator would not be sufficient and Insurance Company had not taken steps to F.A.O.NO. 2181 OF 2000 2 produce the original register or secure the attendance of any witness connected with the records. The authenticity of the so called verification report of the authority cannot be taken as established in a case where the Investigator of the Insurance Company itself produces such a report. The Tribunal was justified in finding that the insurer had not effectively discharged the onus of proof to establish the breach of terms of the policy. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 9th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik