F.A.O.NO. 4079 OF 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 4079 OF 2009 Date of decision:27th October, 2010 Gurmukh Singh son of Gurbag Singh, resident of Village Saini Majra, Now residing C/o House No. 28, Shaheed Bhagat Singh, near Raillon Road, Ropar, District Ropar. .......Appellant Versus Indra Devi and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Sham Lall Bhalla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is by the owner of the vehicle against recovery rights given by the Tribunal through the award. The Insurance Company relied on verification report secured through Licencing Authority Nawashahar that the particular driving licence had not been issued to the driver. Admittedly, the original register was not before the Court nor was any one examined by the Insurer to speak about what the report contained. The owner himself had been examined and he had given evidence to the effect that at the time of employing F.A.O.NO. 4079 OF 2009 2 him he had conducted a driving test and verified the driving licence and believed that it to be genuine. The Tribunal rejected this contention and observed that there was no documentary evidence to show that he had verified it with the Licencing Authority at Nawashahar. In my view, the Tribunal was looking for extracting standards of proof against the owner when it ought to have applied the same yard stick even against the insurer. A report of the Licencing Authority which is not statutory is not a public document. It has to be established in the manner known to law. A mere communication or a verification report to the Tribunal ought to be a beginning point by the insurer to take up a responsible plea denying the licence particulars and it shall be established at the trial by bringing before Court the person who was connected with the original records. That was not done. I cannot take the issue as proved that the driver did not have a valid driving licence or take the insurer to have discharged the burden of proof. 2. Even if it were to be assumed that the report could be acted upon, it has to be seen whether the owner had been guilty of violation of terms of the policy. In this case, there is evidence from the owner regarding his own belief and it is essentially a question of fact as to whether the owner had a basis for such a belief. It may not be expected in every case that owner must enter into some form of communication with the licencing authority and secure proof by personal verification. An owner's faith in the document produced by F.A.O.NO. 4079 OF 2009 3 the driver ought to be sufficient to protect him from a right of indemnity to the insurer. 3. The liability of the insurer under the circumstances must have been not merely to satisfy the claimants but also to indemnify the insured. The award of the Tribunal is under circumstances modified to provide for such a right to the appellant and the appeal by the owner is allowed. The amount deposited by the owner at the time of preferring the appeal shall be permitted to be withdrawn by him. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 27th October, 2010 Shivani Kaushik