FAO No.2531 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2531 of 2007 Date of Decision. 21.09.2010 New India Insurance Company Ltd., Sector 17, Chandigarh through its authorized officer ......Appellant Versus Smt. Bhateri wd/o Bahadur aged 36 years and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.K.S. Tank, Advocate Amicus Curiae. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 on appeal challenging the involvement of the vehicle and liability. It is contended by the insurer that the accident was alleged to have taken place on 29.09.2002 but immediately no complaint had been registered. The FIR was lodged for the first time two weeks later and even there the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident had not been set forth. The accident resulted in death to a pedestrian and the accident was said to have been witnessed by one Mohan Lal and according to him, deceased had suffered injuries in the accident and he was brought to the hospital by his nephew Rahul where he had remained admitted for some time and later taken to PGIMS, Rohtak FAO No.2531 of 2007 -2- where he ultimately succumbed. Rahul was also examined as RW-2, who gave evidence to the effect that he had noted down the number of the vehicle at the time of the accident and had also apprised the family members in that regard but he had not himself taken the trouble of informing the policy immediately. The Court believed the version of the claimant by the only fact that the police had registered the case against the driver and the case was in progress at the time when the matter was taken up for trial by the Tribunal. The investigation by the police and the involvement have some evidentiary value and they shall be seen in the context of other evidence placed before the Tribunal. On due consideration of all the relevant facts, the Tribunal took the view that the insured's vehicle had been involved in the accident. This was particularly so in view of the fact that the driver of the vehicle alleged to have been involved had been impleaded as party respondent but he had given no evidence before the Tribunal to deny the involvement of the vehicle. The non-examination of the driver-cum-owner was treated as a weighty circumstance to find the involvement of the said vehicle. I do not find any fault with the approach of the Tribunal in drawing an adverse inference for the non-examination of the driver. 2. On the plea regarding the want of driving licence by the driver, the Tribunal observed that the insurance company made no argument in that regard and did not also produce any evidence to show that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. Even an inference of negative fact could be made only if an appropriate demand of producing the licence had been made on the driver and FAO No.2531 of 2007 -3- he had not produced the same. The insurer had not attempted to establish what was essentially an issue on which the burden was heavily on the insurer. 3. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 21, 2010 Pankaj*