IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1048 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision:13.07.2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Sarwan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.LM. Suri, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Advocate, 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. CM No.16341-CII of 2010 1. The award is not required to be corrected before this Court, for, it should have been done only before the Tribunal. 2. Application is allowed as regard the amendment in the name of claimant No.2 from Puneet to Vaneet in the memo of parties. 3. Registry is directed to make necessary amendment in the memo of parties as sought for in the application by the applicant. FAO No.1048 of 2001 4. The Insurance Company denies liability on the ground that the driving licence of the offending truck which was insured with the FAO No.1048 of 2001 (O&M) - 2 - appellant was not genuine. The driving licence which is produced as R-1 was purported to have been issued in duplicate by the DTO, Patiala, when the original issuing authority was Hyderabad. The date of first issue was 16.09.1977 but the duplicate had been issued by the DTO, Patiala on 30.01.1996. The Insurance Company had a Local Commissioner appointed to give a report by undertaking a visit to the Licensing Authority, Hyderabad. The Commissioner had recorded the statement of K. Veerabhadra Rao, Assistant Secretary, RTA Office Hyderabad and Smt. N.Vijay Laxmi, Senior Assistant, RTA East Zone Hyderabad. They have said that the original record of the year 1977 was not traceable. The contention however was that the Hyderabad office had not issued the policy in the year 1977. Mr.K. Veerabhadra Rao had said that for the subsequent year 1978, the DL Serial Number was 5131 and in the year 1979, the DL Serial No. was 11683. He therefore said that the DL Serial No.13903 could not have been issued in the year 1977 and that in the year 1977, there was only one office in Hyderabad city and there was no zonal office. The other officer N. Vijay Laxmi gave evidence that east zone office was not in existence in the year 1977 and that the driving licence could not have been issued in the year 1977 for a particular number which the driving licence bore. It is more a matter of a possible inference than a positive evidence. The Tribunal has reasoned that if the details of the actual year of 1977 are not available, the fact that the duplicate had been issued by DTO, Patiala, must be taken to mean that there had been a valid issue in the year 1977 and all the necessary formalities must have been observed before issuing a duplicate licence to FAO No.1048 of 2001 (O&M) - 3 - a driver that he was fit to drive a HTV. I do not find any error in the reasoning of the Tribunal to cast the liability on the insurer. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 13.07.2010 sanjeev