FAO No. 4370 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4370 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.01.2010 National Insurance Company ....Appellant Versus Simranjit Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 21.04.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur, vide which the liability to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants, was fastened on the Insurance Company. The claim petition filed by the claimants was contested by the appellant, by taking a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. However, no evidence was led in support of this plea. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not drawing a presumption against respondent No.3 for not producing the valid driving licence. This plea deserves to be noticed to be rejected, as it is well settled law, that it is for the Insurance Company to prove the plea that the offending driver, did not hold a valid driving licence. No FAO No. 4370 of 2009 (O&M) -2- presumption in favour of the Insurance Company can be drawn, as contended. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, that on the date of accident, there was no valid insurance policy covering the vehicle involved in accident. It has been averred that the original cover note showed the coverage from 11.4.2005 to 10.4.2006, whereas the accident took place on 9.4.2005. This plea again deserves to be rejected as the policy produced before the learned Tribunal was operative from 8.4.2005 to 7.4.2006. No evidence was led before the learned Tribunal, that the policy was forged or invalid, as is sought to be contended for the first time in this Court. This plea cannot be accepted, without there being any other material in support thereof. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 20, 2010 R.S.