FAO No.1486 of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1486 of 1997 Date of Decision. 30.06.2010 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., G.T. Road, Opp. Bus Stand Karnal through its Divisional Manager (insurer of offending truck No.HPN- 2144) ........Appellant Versus Uma Saran and others ...Respondents 2. FAO No.1487 of 1997 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., G.T. Road, Opp. Bus Stand Karnal through its Divisional Manager (insurer of offending truck No.HPN- 2144) ........Appellant Versus Krishan Kumar Goyal and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, 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. The insurance company is in appeal challenging the correctness of the award on the ground that in spite of positive proof that the driving licence produced by the driver was shown to have been not issued by the licensing authority by producing the register and examining the Clerk from the licensing authority, the Tribunal FAO No.1486 of 1997 -2- had erroneously held that the insurance company was still liable. While the onus was clearly on the insurer, the moment evidence is let in that the particular licence produced was not genuine and the records are also produced before Court, the onus will shift to the owner to explain under what circumstances and under what belief he acted and allowed the driver to drive the vehicle. Without evidence from the owner that the he had any basis to believe that the driver had a valid driving licence, it should only be taken that the insurer had discharged the burden of proof that there had been a breach of the condition in the policy. The award making the insurer liable and completely exonerating the insured is, therefore, erroneous. 2. The award of the Tribunal in so far as it casts the liability only on the insurer is set aside and I find that while the insurance company is still liable to satisfy the award, it shall have the right of recovery against the insured for breach of violation of the terms of policy. 3. The appeals are partly allowed and the awards of the Tribunal are modified to the above extent only. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE June 30, 2010 Pankaj*