F.A.O.NO. 1218 OF 1995 and 1 F.A.O.No. 1219 of 1995 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1218 OF 1995 Date of decision: 20th July, 2010 National Insurance Company Limited .......Appellant Versus Lakhwinder Singh and others ........Respondents F.A.O.No. 1219 of 1995 National Insurance Company Limited .........Appellant Versus Balbir Kaur and others ..........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Deepak Suri, 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. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident at the instance of the Insurance Company. It urges that at the relevant time of the accident on 8.08.1992 the policy of the Insurance did not subsist. It was contended that the policy has been issued on 10.09.1991 and it was canceled on 31.10.1991 for non payment of premium. In evidence it was shown that the policy was F.A.O.NO. 1218 OF 1995 and 2 F.A.O.No. 1219 of 1995 canceled on 31.10.1992. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company states that it was merely an accidental slip and the reference must be taken only as a cancelation on 31.10.1991. Even if such a contention is accepted, it has to be seen whether the insurer was apprised about the cancelation of policy. There is no such contention. If there was premium that was left unpaid the Insurance Company may have a reason to recover the same from the insured. The policy is invariably a contract and a cancellation cannot take effect without the same being communicated with the insured. Such evidence is not available and the liability cast on the Insurance company. 3. The Insurance Company took up a plea that licence is fake but no proof was found in respect of the same. It is a well established principle of law that the insurer shall take the burden of proof to prove that the insured had committed violation of terms of policy. This had not been so established. 5. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the appeals are dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 20th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik