IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2125 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:06.01.2011 Sagir and another ....Appellants versus Fajru and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 7. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No.8. ---- 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 appeal is at the instance of the driver/owner, who had been fastened with the liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The driving licence had been produced by the driver at the trial but the driving licence contained the name of his grandfather and not his father's name. The driver had an explanation to give namely that his father had died long back and, therefore, only the name of his grandfather, who had taken care of him, had been wrongly entered. He pointed out that a similar mistake had also occurred even in the ration card in referring to the grandfather as father. Even the address was said to be different referring to the driver as a resident of Mewat when he was a resident of FAO No.2125 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - Rewari. The identity of a person through father's name is merely one of the instances for fixing an identity. Now-a-days the licence carries a photograph of the individual as well and that is also to ensure the identity of the person. If the document produced before the Court contained the photograph, there must have been also a photograph affixed in the original register maintained by the RTO. If the Insurance Company had a doubt as regards the identity, the burden was on the Insurance Company to establish that the particular driving licence produced before the Court did not pertain to the driver. If a document is produced from the custody of the person who would have normally possessed it, unless it was established that the driving licence was for a different person. If the photograph found in the document produced was of the driver himself, then it could not be stated that the Insurance Company had discharged the burden which was heavily on it to state that the driver did not have a valid licence. 2. In my view, the Tribunal was in error in casting the burden of proof on the driver to prove his own identity when the document was produced by him. The liability cast on the owner and driver and exonerating the Insurance Company is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The liability shall be on the insurer to satisfy the claim under the award. Any amount that has been deposited by the appellants shall be permitted to the withdrawn by them. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 06.01.2011 sanjeev