FAO No.735 of 2008(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.735 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision:18.05.2011 Sheikh Farid Finvest Ltd. and another .......Appellants Versus Satpal Singh son of Gurdev Singh and another ......Respondents Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate and Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Rahul Wadehra, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing. The point involved in the appeal is the claim for entitlement of the owner to be indemnified by the insurance company. The Tribunal had found that there had been violation of terms of policy as the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The appellant has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in which the appellant wants to introduce an additional evidence that he had liecnce to drive a gypsy. 2. Learned counsel for the insurance company says that they have FAO No.735 of 2008(O&M) -2- carried out an inspection and find that the licence was valid. The additional evidence is taken on record to find a justification for the entitlement of the insured to be fully indemnified by the insurer. 3. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the insurance company shall be liable to provide indemnity to the insured. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. If any amount has been paid by the insured to the claimants, the same shall be recovered by the insured from the insurance company. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE May 18, 2011 Pankaj*