IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4425 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.09.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Ajaib Singh and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.4426 of 2002 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Charanjit Kaur and others ...Respondents ----- Present: Mr. Amit Aggarwal, 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 is in appeal challenging liability on the ground that the driver in Haryana Roadways did not have a valid driving licence. The driver himself was examined and he gave evidence that he held a valid driving licence. He did not however produce the same. RW2 Mahinder Singh, Clerk was also examined to say that the Haryana Roadways makes recruitment of drivers only after the driving FAO No.4425 of 2002 (O&M) - 2 - licence is verified and they will have appointed only if they possess a valid driving licence. This has come through a suggestion in the cross- examination when the Clerk has not even produced the file. There was no suggestion that the document was not produced because the driver did not have a valid driving licence. 2. The counsel for the insurer would contend that the insurer had filed a petition for production of driving licence before the Tribunal but the Tribunal had not passed any orders. This is rather a strange procedure. The best method of securing the production of a document and drawing an adverse inference shall be in the manner provided under the rules of the Civil Procedure Code itself which require no more than a mere notice to the party to produce the document contemplated under Order 11 Rule 16 CPC. Such a notice could be issued by a counsel to either the counsel for the driver or to the party directly in form No.7 in appendix-C to the Civil Procedure Code. The Court can also independently pass orders directing the production of the documents. If the application of the counsel before the Tribunal for production had not been followed up with the order by the Tribunal, the easiest resort for a party seeking its production was to make a formal demand for production of the driving licence of the party. The burden of proof is that the driver did not have a valid driving licence is so well established to be on the insurer that it cannot avail to an insurer to contend that the Tribunal did not pass an order for production and, therefore, it must be assumed that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. FAO No.4425 of 2002 (O&M) - 3 - 3. The Insurance Company could not be said to have discharged the burden. The award making the insurer fully liable is sustained and the appeals by the insurer are dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22 .09.2010 sanjeev