IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.500 of 1998 Date of decision:16.09.2010 New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Abdul Majid and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for Mr. Mukesh Mittal, 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 it on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The copy of the licence produced before the Court showed that the licence had been issued on 23.11.1991. The document produced before the Court from the licensing authority through a witness from the same office was to the effect that no licence at all had been issued on 23.11.1991 and during the relevant time, there was issue of licence on 21.11.1991 and subsequently only to 25.11.1991 the other licence was issued. The attempt was therefore to show that the particular date and FAO No.500 of 1998 - 2 - number that the copy of the licence bore were fake and they had not been issued by the licensing authority. 2. The Tribunal still held relying on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a willful breach of violation of terms of the policy has to be shown. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court must be only understood as laying down the proposition of law that the burden of proof shall be on the insurer to contend that there had been a violation of terms of the policy, and it must only be treated as sufficiently done if the evidence is placed before the Court that the driving licence was not genuine, in which case either the driver or the owner must give contra evidence or explain how the evidence is either not correct or the owner was led to believe that the licence was genuine. When no contra evidence was given, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the insured's plea that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and the insured had committed breach of terms of the policy. The liability of the insurer in such a case would be only to satisfy the claimants and it shall have a right of recovery against the insured. 3. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 16.09.2010 sanjeev