IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2281 of 2009 Date of decision:12.08.2010 Nasib Kaur ...Appellant Versus Sukhchain Singh and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Inderpal Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.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. The claimant's case against the insurer failed for what the Tribunal thought was a case of impersonation. The driver, who admitted the accident and who had also been convicted before the criminal court, said that he has an alias Gurcharan Singh although referred to Sukhchain Singh in the case before the Tribunal. He produced the driving licence in Court which bore the name Gurcharan Singh. The Tribunal found that there was no document to show that Gurcharan Singh and Sukhchain Singh were the same person. It was however brought on record that in the criminal court, the person, who was present in Court and who gave FAO No.2281 of 2009 - 2 - evidence as Sukhchain Singh, had been described with an alias in the judgment of the criminal court convicting him. If the criminal court's records showed Sukhchain Singh's name with alias as Gurcharan Singh as well and if a person states that he was responsible for the accident, suffers a conviction in the name of Gurcharan Singh @ Sukhchain Singh, the reasoning of the Tribunal that the driver did not possess any independent evidence that he had such a alias name to exclude the liability of the insurer, seems inappropriate. There could not have been any doubt left in the mind of the Tribunal that the person, who drove the vehicle, had a valid driving licence and that was produced before the Court. The Tribunal had a reason to even personally assess to itself whether the photograph found in the document produced by him confirmed to the person, who was before him in the Court. The Tribunal did not go as far as to say that the driving licence itself did not belong to him. It only had a doubt whether Gurcharan Singh also had a alias Sukhchain Singh. There was no need to doubt on a non-issue. It was a simple case of admission of a driver, who had been guilty of negligence driving and such a driver had a licence in the name of Gurcharan Singh. That both the names referred to the same person was as clear as sky and they have been needless obfuscation in reasoning adopted by the Tribunal. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 points out that in the driving licence produced against the name Gurcharan Singh, there had been an ink mark and there were no other document to show that Gurcharan Singh and Sukhchain Singh were the same person. I have FAO No.2281 of 2009 - 3 - already held that the two names referred to the same individual and the fact that the criminal court records had referred to them as the same person, ought to have been as sufficient and, therefore, the Insurance Company wholly liable. Under the circumstances, the award of the Tribunal is modified to provide for a right of enforcement against the insurer. The appeal filed by the claimant to fasten the liability on the insurer shall stand modified. The appeal is allowed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 12.08.2010 sanjeev