FAO No.4584 of 2006 1 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH FAO No.4584 of 2006 Date of Decision: 15.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Ranjit Singh & ors. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Suman Jain, Advocate, Mr.Manmohan, Advocate, for the appellant, Mr.Ranbir Tejpal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** K.Kannan J. (Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the involvement of the vehicle on the ground that the particular vehicle bearing registration No.HR-37-1908 was having a permit to ply on Chandigarh-Delhi via Zirakpur route but the accident took place in Morni which does not fall anywhere in the same route. At the trial, the driver had been examined and a log book had also been filed before the Court to show that the particular vehicle on that day was driven between Chandigarh to Delhi and it had not plied anywhere in Morni road. The Tribunal did not accept this contention in view of the fact elicited in the cross-examination of RW2 that in the duty register, number of bus had originally been registered as 4531, later cut-down FAO No.4584 of 2006 2 and changed to vehicle No.1908. Again the name of the driver of the bus had been previously written as 283, later struck-down and changed to 64 that had relation to the driver of the particular bus. This discrepancy ought to have been appropriately explained at the trial. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company states that this particular bus going from Chandigarh to Delhi was required to have inter-state route permit and it had to be counter-signatures of the Government of Haryana and Chandigarh and this was also shown before the Court. I cannot accommodate to such a plea and it was just well likely that HR-4531 could have also possessed a similar route permit. If the non-involvement of the vehicle could only be contested on the records filed by the owner of the bus and if that document contain discrepancies which were not properly explained, the Tribunal was justified in finding that this document was not worthy of acceptance and cannot obtain a higher probative value only by the fact that the party involved is a Government functionary. There is no rule of evidence that Government records are always genuine. 3. The finding of the Tribunal is therefore, confirmed. The appeal is dismissed. 15.09.2010 (K.Kannan) sailesh Judge