C.W.P. No.10255 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.10255 of 2010 Date of Decision.09.09.2011 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 139-140, Ist Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160 018 through its Senior Executive Sh. Praman Preet Singh .....Petitioner Versus Subhash son of Sh. Brahmdutt, resident of House No.35, village Mahendwara, Tehsil Sohan, District Gurgaon and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.1. 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. The petition is against the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat in a case where the insured made a claim seeking for the enforcement of a clause in insurance for damage to a vehicle. The insurance company had also repudiated the claim on the ground that driver of the three- wheeler did not have a valid driving licence. When the claimant pressed for a relief before the Permanent Lok Adalat, the insurance company did no more than making an assertion in the written statement that the driving licence was fake. In a case where the insurance company pleads exclusion of liability to contend that there had been a breach of terms of the policy by entrusting the vehicle to a person, who did not have a valid driving licence, the burden of proof would be on the insurer to C.W.P. No.10255 of 2010 -2- establish that there had been such violation. A mere averment that a person did not have a valid driving licence cannot amount to a proof nor can the safe retention in custody of a verification report from the investigator that the driver did not have a valid driving licence by the insurance company and which was not brought before the Lok Adalat, afford any valid defence for insurance company to repudiate the claim or to deny to the claimant a right of full indemnity for the loss suffered. 2. There is no error in the award. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 09, 2011 Pankaj*