C.W.P. No.3740 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.3740 of 2010 Date of Decision.07.09.2011 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory .....Petitioner Versus Jasbir Singh son of Shri Mahender Singh, resident of village Naharpur Kasan, District Gurgaon and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. Aftab, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sonak, 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 writ petition challenges the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, which has upheld the claim of the insured for own damage resulting from an accident to the vehicle. The defence by the insurance company was that the driver did not have a valid driving licence as well as report from the renewing authority that the licence had not been issued in the name of driver Jitender Singh from the District Transport Office, Sitamarhi. The insurance company's contention was that it was only a renewal of licence alleged to have been issued under Licence No.1668/Patna and the insurance company produced the report of the investigator of Nirmal Kumar that he had visited the office of the Licensing Authority, Patna and according to C.W.P. No.3740 of 2010 -2- him, the licence had been issued against Licence No.1668/98 in the name of Shivjee Kumar son of Rajinder Rai and not to Jitender. 2. The Permanent Lok Adalat found that the report of the investigator could not be relied on since the signature of the Issuing Authority was not clear and the signature of the clerk dated 16.12.2008 conflicted with the writing that bore the date 06.12.2008. When the Permanent Lok Adalat has, on a matter of fact, found that report of the Surveyor was not reliable, it shall not be possible for this Court under jurisdiction of Article 226 to reverse the finding of fact. The best evidence could have been produced by the insurer by summoning some person from the Licensing Authority at Patna. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, states that as per the terms of the policy, the insured is bound to accept report of the surveyor. When an adjudication comes regarding the genuineness of a document and when the insured states that his driver was duly licenced, the burden of proof is clearly on the insurer to state that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. That burden of proof was not properly discharged and I cannot, therefore, reverse the finding rendered by the Permanent Lok Adalat. 3. The award is confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 07, 2011 Pankaj*