FAO No.837 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.837 of 1992 Date of Decision.11.11.2010 Krishan Chand S/o Balbir r/p Sabzi Mandi Mansa District Bhatinda. ......Appellant Versus Ram Sukh s/o Nanak r/o Parawar Distt. Bhiwani and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.5. 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. The appeal by the owner is on a limited aspect that the Tribunal's reliability was on an alleged certificate issued by the Licensing Authority to the insurance company that the driving licence had not been issued by the Licensing Authority at Cuttack to the driver Sukha Singh. The Tribunal had merely relied on the certificate to hold that the driver had a fake licence and made the owner liable in the award. 2. I cannot accept the reasoning of the Tribunal that the driver had but a fake licence by the only fact that a letter by the insurance company, purported to have been issued by the Licensing Authority, made reference to an alleged fact that no licence had been issued in FAO No.837 of 1992 -2- the name of Sukha Singh. If a certificate is not statutory in character, it would require to be proved by the insurer by summoning the original records and eliciting with reference to the same by some witnesses connected with the records that no licence had been issued by the said Licensing Authority in favour of the driver. A certificate cannot be a basis for a finding that it is fake and I cannot accept a reasoning that the insurance company had effectively discharged the burden of proof on the insurer to show that the licence was not genuine. 3. I vacate the finding relating to the exoneration of liability of the insurer on the basis that the insurer had failed to discharge the burden of proof that the driver did not have a valid and effective driving licence. 4. The liability shall be only on the insurer and the appeal filed by the owner is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 11, 2010 Pankaj*