IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.25 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision:13.10.2010 National Insurance Company ....Appellant versus Prem Vats and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.26 of 1994 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Sham Sunder and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate, for respondent No.6 in FAO No.25 of 1994 and for respondent No.3 in FAO No.26 of 1994. Mr.Kulvir Narwal, Advocate, for respondents 7 and 8 in FAO No.25 of 1994 and for respondent No.1 in FAO No.26 of 1994. Mr. J.S.Virk, Advocate. ---- 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) The appeals by the Insurance Company raise an issue relating to the invalidity of a driving licence of the driver. Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company had made available only a report FAO No.25 of 1994 (O&M) - 2 - produced from the licensing authority to say that the licence had not been issued. The Insurance Company took no effort to adduce evidence regarding the details contained in the report by either examining the register or examining any person connected with the records from the licensing authority. A faint argument that is made on behalf of the Insurance Company is that the lawyers were going on boycott at that time and, therefore, effective steps could not be taken to secure the appropriate evidence. The Insurance Company shall take the consequences of what is otherwise held in several decisions to be unlawful activity. I have also come by decisions where Courts have been indulgent in cases where lawyers have boycotted Courts and the parties have been granted opportunities to have their cases reheard. But I cannot accommodate a plea of an insurer which is a public organization that itself fettered by boycott by a community of lawyers to take steps. If the evidence was not produced to substantiate the defence that the driver did not have a valid driving licence, I do not find how this argument could otherwise help the insurer to contend that there was a justification for non-production. The justification shown is no justification in the eye of law. The appeals by the Insurance Company are dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 13.10.2010 sanjeev