IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.867 of 2001(O&M) Date of decision:04.10.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Mohinder Pal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.V. Ramswaroop, 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 challenges the finding of the Tribunal that the driver had a valid driving licence. The Ahalmad of the Criminal Court was examined as RW1 to say that the driving licence that had been produced was in the name of Rana son of Nandu. The driver had been shown as Kamlesh son of Gulzari Lal. However, the Tribunal reasoned that in the recovery memo of ASI Avtar Singh, Kalmesh Kumar had been shown to have alias as Rana. Gulzari Lal's father's name was also referred as alias as Nandu. However, the village name was the same as Mehma P.S.Mehatpur. The Tribunal, therefore, held that Rana son of Nandu must be the same as Kamlesh son of Gulzari Lal. It cannot be merely an issue of inference where a positive evidence is necessary to be FAO No.867 of 2001(O&M) - 2 - placed by the insurer that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. It ought to have called upon the driver/owner to produce the driving licence under Section 134 of the MV Act and taken upon itself the duty to let in evidence that there were two different persons. The Insurance Company cannot be said to have discharged its burden that the driver did not have valid driving licence. The finding of the Tribunal, under the circumstances, is justified. 2. It was contended that the vehicle was a Tata sumo but the driver had licence only to drive a light motor vehicle. Tata sumo is not shown to be any higher category of vehicle that required a different licence than what was stated in the licence as a light motor vehicle. 3. The award is confirmed and the appeal by the Insurance Company is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 04.10.2010 sanjeev