IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1356 of 1995 Date of decision:29.06.2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Chander Kanta and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 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 denied the liability on the ground that there was no valid driving licence. The Tribunal rejected the contention by finding that there was no more than a letter said to have been sent by the issuing authority that the licence was not true. The Tribunal found that a mere letter cannot disapprove the validity of the licence which was produced before the Court. It also took note of the fact that the driver had died before the trial and with no positive evidence that the licence was a fake one, the Insurance Company could not escape liability. The Insurance Company had attempted to show that it had also taken steps to summon the authority which had issued the licence but such a permission was not granted by the Tribunal by its order dated FAO No.1356 of 1995 - 2 - 12.01.1995. The award had been passed on 24.01.1995 and the rejection of the plea by the Insurance Company has been made on 12.01.1995. The Tribunal has rejected the request on the ground that the licencing Clerk of the office of the RTO, Saharanpur was not present on the day when it was posted for its examination. The summon had been returned with an endorsement that there was a strike in RTO office and RTO did not extend any cooperation. The Tribunal found that even at the previous time on 20.12.1994, the summon had been returned with the same report. The Tribunal found on perusal of the records that the evidence of other respondents had been closed on 17.12.1993 and the Insurance Company was taking time for production evidence for more than a year. It had also given 13 long opportunities to the Insurance Company to produce evidence. It failed to do so. The rejection of the plea therefore for examining the authority on commission was found to be not bona fide. I do not see any error in the approach of the Tribunal and the award that ultimately was passed by finding that the Insurance Company had not taken appropriate steps to examine the authority to substantiate its contention that the licence was a forged one, is, under the circumstances, perfectly justified. There is no merit in the appeal and is dismissed. There shall be however no order as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 29.06.2010 sanjeev