IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1766 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision:27.09.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Sohan Lal and others ...Respondents II. Civil Revision No.3100 of 2000 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, 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 the liability cast on the insurer when it relied on the report of the Licensing Authority at Hyderabad that the licence was fake. The Tribunal rejected the contention on the ground that no proof had been adduced for the proof of the recitals in the report. The Civil Revision petition addresses the same issue but filed as such, since the award is less than Rs.40,000/-. FAO No.1766 of 2000 (O&M) - 2 - 2. The grievance of the learned senior counsel for the Insurance Company is that the report was called for by the Tribunal itself in response to a petition which was filed seeking for appoint of a Local Commissioner to go to the licensing authority and collect evidence. Having directed the party to adopt a particular procedure, the Tribunal ought not to have ultimately rejected the evidentiary value of the report when it came back. 3. The proceedings before the Tribunal are summary and the Court will be empowered to act on the documents if they are formally proved or admitted. If there was a dispute on the report, then the Tribunal will not be without jurisdiction to say that a proper proof must be tendered on the report. While I cannot fault the Tribunal for what it required shall be done, I will still deem it necessary to give a fresh opportunity to establish the report in a case where the Tribunal itself had adopted a particular procedure. Declining a request by the insurer to appoint a Local Commissioner to collect the statement and ultimately finding the report to be not proved is not fair and I am, therefore, of the opinion that the insurer shall have a liberty to prove that the driving licence, produced by the driver, was fake. 4. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal in so far as it closes the issue of driving licence is directed to be reopened and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal at Yamuna Nagar with liberty to the insurer to produce appropriate evidence from the competent authority before the Tribunal. The adjudication shall be only on the issue of validity of driving licence and the award in so far as it determines the compensation FAO No.1766 of 2000 (O&M) - 3 - and finds the claimants to be entitled, shall stand confirmed. It shall not even be necessary to serve any notice to the claimants to join the issue relating to the validity of the driving licence since this Court has dismissed the appeal qua the claimants. 5. The appeal and the civil revision are allowed and is remitted to the Tribunal for the reasons stated above and for adjudication in the manner known to law. 6. For appearance of parties before the Tribunal on 28.10.2010. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.09.2010 sanjeev