FAO No.2573 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2573 of 1996 Date of Decision. 17.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ......Appellant Versus Satyender Singh alias Tony minor son of Sh. Rajbir Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for for respondent No.1. Mr. S.N. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.3. 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. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company states that FAO No.2573 and 2575 of 1996 are not connected in any way. They are ordered to be delinked and are being taken up separately. 2. The insurance company is on appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the licence had been issued on 10.02.1994, when the accident had taken place on 04.02.1994. The contention was, therefore, that the driver did not have valid driving FAO No.2573 of 1996 -2- licence. 3. An official from the Licensing Authority, Mall Road, Delhi was summoned as RW-2 and he gave evidence with reference to R-1 to state that the licence had been issued by that authority on 10.02.1994. The same witness was confronted in the cross- examination that on the reverse of copy of R-1, there had been a reference to the licence No.5660 of 1990 and that it referred to an issue of licence for a light motor vehicle on 26.08.1990. The witness also admitted that on the face of R-1 it seemed like the licence was issued for the first time but looking at the reverse side of the document produced before Court, it seemed like it was an old one and the licence had been issued on 26.08.1990. The witness himself had stated that he had not brought the record of the driving licence purported to be issued in the year 1990. The learned Senior Counsel states that if the evidence was brought by the insurer to state with reference to the original records that the licence had been issued only on 10.02.1994, the onus of proof shifts to a driver to explain as to where he obtained a licence even in the year 1990 and whether it was current at the time when the accident took place on 4.2.1994. I cannot accept this argument, for if I place the burden of proof as existing on the insurer, the burden never shifts. The document, which produced before the Court admitted of ambiguity and that ambiguity must have been satisfactorily explained by the witness himself. If the licence, alleged to have been issued that bore No.5660 of 1990 dated 26.08.1990, did not belong to the driver, proof must first be adduced only by the insurer before he can expect FAO No.2573 of 1996 -3- the owner to explain the same. The burden of proof that was on the insurer had not been effectively discharged and the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in casting the liability only on the insurer and holding that the insurer had not proved that the driver did not have an effective driving licence. 4. The appeal by the insurance company is, therefore, dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 17, 2010 Pankaj*