FAO No.792 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.792 of 1998 Date of Decision. 29.07.2010 2. FAO No.793 of 1998 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through its Assistant Manager, Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17, Chandigarh .........Appellant Versus Gurdev Kaur wife of Surjit Singh son of Chet Singh and others .......Respondents 3. FAO No.794 of 1998 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through its Assistant Manager, Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17, Chandigarh .........Appellant Versus Kuldeep Kaur @ Kulwinder Kaur w/o Major Singh s/o Gurdial Singh resident of village Ghaniwala Tehsil and District, Faridkot and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. All the three appeals take up the plea of the insurance company relating to the invalidity of the driving licence. The driver had remained ex parte and the owner had produced the copy of the driving licence said to have been issued by the licensing authority, Amritsar. The document was got verified and a report was secured FAO No.792 of 1998 -2- to say that the licence was not genuine. The original was, therefore, called upon to be produced by the insurer. It served a notice on the counsel for the owner. The owner had pleaded before the Tribunal that the copy, which was produced and marked as Ex.RY may be taken as withdrawn and it may not be taken as evidence. The insurance company again moved an application for appointing a local commissioner to secure evidence about the information that the driver had also got issued with a licence from licensing authority, Guwahati. The Tribunal had declined the permission. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company pleads that when the owner had produced a copy of the licence, which was found to be fake and when the owner gave no evidence, it must have been only taken that the owner had committed a breach of condition in the policy by entrusting the vehicle to a person, who did not have a valid driving licence. The Tribunal, according to him, ought to have held that the insurer had discharged its burden of proof especially when he had also sought for permission for tendering evidence with reference to some licence, said to have been issued by licensing authority, Guwahati. In this case, it must be noticed that the owner himself was not prepared to enter into the witness box to explain the circumstances under which he believed that the driver had a valid licence. The driver had also not appeared in Tribunal and set ex parte. The insurer could have secured his presence to offer an explanation about the possession or otherwise of the driving licence. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the insurance company could not have been made FAO No.792 of 1998 -3- liable without providing to them a right of recovery against the insured. 3. All the appeals are allowed to the extent of modifying the award passed by the Tribunal with liability restricted to satisfy the claims of the claimants with right of recovery against the owner. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 29, 2010 Pankaj*