F.A.O.NO. 2290 OF 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 2290 OF 1994 Date of decision: 16th July, 2010 New India Assurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Kamlesh and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Rajat Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No 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. 2. The Tribunal found that the Insurance Company had not taken steps to summon the records. While I will not agree with the reasoning that the Insurance Company could have summoned the records without knowing the driving licence particulars, I would still come to the same result in the ultimate dispensation by the fact that no notice appears to have been served on the owner or the driver to produce the license. If the Court had issued a summon which was not received by the driver F.A.O.NO. 2290 OF 1994 2 that will by itself not prove that the insurer had discharged the onus. The Tribunal has found that the burden which was on the insurer was not duly discharged. It has found that the insured himself must have been examined or served the notice on the insured for the production of the licence. It is not the case of the insurer that the insured acts in collision with the claimants and the evidence of the insured is not possible for the insurer to secure. 3. The Insurance Company has not discharged the onus and the finding of the Tribunal therefore, cannot be interfered and the appeal is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 16th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik