FAO No.1306 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1306 of 2000 Date of Decision. 21.07.2010 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney .........Appellant Versus Surinder Kaur wife of Sh. Judge Singh, village Bhattian, Tehsil and District Patiala and others .......Respondents 2. FAO No.1307 of 2000 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney .........Appellant Versus Sukhwinder Singh son of Sh. Bant Singh, resident of village Balbehra, Tehsil and District Patiala and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, 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. In both the appeals, the insurance company is challenging the liability on the ground that the driving licence was proved to be fake by a local commissioner having been appointed to go to Cuttack and obtain statements of the authorities, who were maintaining the register. The report and the statements were not taken on file by FAO No.1306 of 2000 -2- the Tribunal for the reason that the owner and the driver did not have sufficient time to make arrangements to go to Cuttack. It appears that the Commissioner had given notice to the parties on 21.1.1999 and left for Cuttack on 25.1.1999. I do not know how this amounts to insufficient opportunity. Even if it were to be taken that this was not sufficient, the owner could have at least given evidence in Tribunal as to what was the belief about the licence or the driver that the statement obtained by the local commissioner could not be correct. The owner and the driver had sufficient opportunity to refute the genuineness of the report and the facts elicited by the local commissioner by giving their own evidence. They did not do so. In such a circumstance, I hold that the burden of proof had been discharged by the insurance company by the evidence collected through the local commissioner. 2. Under the circumstances, the award of the Tribunal is modified only to the extent providing for a right of recovery against the insured after satisfying the claim of the claimants. The appeals are partly allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE July 21, 2010 Pankaj*