IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3368 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:04.05.2011 IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant versus Shyamvir and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate, for the appellant. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal by the Insurance Company denies the involvement of the vehicle. The claimant relied on the statement found in the FIR and gave evidence to the effect that the involvement of the vehicle was informed to him through his brother and the case had also been registered by his brother. The driver/owner of the vehicle, who had been served, remained ex parte. The Insurance Company rode on a plea that the petitioner did not establish his case. The counsel would also argue that the FIR is not a proof of the accident itself. In a case where the claimant makes a reference to the fact that the case had been registered and contends that it was the insured's vehicle that was FAO No.3368 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - involved in the accident, the Insurance Company cannot be heard to contend merely that the owner/driver has not been examined or the Investigating Officer was not called to Court, the case of involvement of the vehicle cannot be taken as proved. 2. The Insurance Company which takes a plea that the vehicle was not involved ought to have taken steps to bring the evidence of its own insured. The claimant cannot be expected to bring his adversary as a witness before the Court. An Insurance Company has no reason to treat his own insured as his adversary. The burden of proof which existed on the petitioner to prove the involvement of the vehicle must be taken as duly discharged in a case where the petitioner cast his own evidence and also files the FIR in Court. The Tribunal has found that there had been no proof that driver had a valid driving licence and had also given a right of recovery from the insured after satisfying the award. 3. That itself must be taken as sufficient protection for the Insurance Company. An appeal by the Insurance Company is not justified in this case where the right of recovery has also been provided. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 04.05.2011 sanjeev