F.A.O No.1123 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O No.1123 of 1996 Date of Decision. 27.10.2010 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ....Appellant Versus Mohan Lal son of Paras Ram, resident of 73, Mathura Colony, Patiala and others ....Respondents 2. FAO No.1124 of 1996 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ....Appellant Versus Raksha Devi wife of Madan Lal, mother of the deceased Pardeep Kumar and others ....Respondents 3. FAO No.1125 of 1996 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ....Appellant Versus Sunita wd/o Sh. Umesh Kumar @ Pinki son of Siri Chand and others ....Respondents 4. FAO No.1126 of 1996 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ....Appellant Versus Shinder Kaur widow of Gurcharan Singh and others ....Respondents 5. FAO No.1127 of 1996 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ....Appellant F.A.O No.1123 of 1996 -2- Versus Sanjeev Kumar minor son of Lalit Kumar and others ....Respondents 6. FAO No.1128 of 1996 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ....Appellant Versus Satinderpal Singh alias Pappi son of Arjan Singh resident of 1270/1, Mohalla Sukhdaspura, B-Tank, Patiala and others ....Respondents 7. FAO No.1129 of 1996 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ....Appellant Versus Mohan Lal son of Paras Ram, resident of House No.73, Mathura Colony, Patiala and others ....Respondents 8. FAO No.1130 of 1996 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ....Appellant Versus Sheela Rai widow of Kishan Chand and others ....Respondents 9. FAO No.1131 of 1996 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ....Appellant Versus Rajinder Kumar son of Piara Lal, resident of Jand Gali, Kila Chowk, Patiala and others ....Respondents 10. C.R. No.2325 of 1996 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ....Appellant Versus F.A.O No.1123 of 1996 -3- Gulshan Kumari, minor daughter of Mohan Lal through her guardian and next friend father Sh. Mohan Lal, resident of Mathura Colony, Patiala and others ....Respondents 11. C.R. No.2327 of 1996 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ....Appellant Versus Miss Rekha Rani, minor daughter of Mohan Lal through her guardian and next friend father Sh. Mohan Lal resident of Mathura Colony, Patiala and others ....Respondents 12. FAO No.2329 of 1996 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ....Appellant Versus Poonam minor daughter of Lalit Kumar r/o H.No.14, Mathura Colony, Patiala through her next friend and mother Smt. Kiran w/o Lalit Kumar of Patiala and others ....Respondents 13. FAO No.2331 of 1996 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ....Appellant Versus Parveen wife of Sh. Rajinder Kumar resident of Jand Gali Kila Chowk, Patiala and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. L.M. Suri, Sr. Advocate Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, 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 ? F.A.O No.1123 of 1996 -4- 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. On 05.08.2010, I passed an order being convinced that the insurance company shall have an opportunity to produce additional evidence for proof of the validity of driving licence. It appears that the process fee had also been paid but still summons could not be issued since the address of the licensing authority got detached and the office has not carried the direction already made effectively. I do not think that the case must be held up before this Court only for this purpose. The award in so far as it finds that the validity of the driving licence was not successfully impeached shall stand set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal at Patiala for an adjudication relating to the validity of the driving licence of the driver of offending vehicle. The award as regards the quantum and entitlement of the claimants shall stand confirmed and the remand is being for adjudication of inter se dispute between the insured and the insurer. 2. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 26.11.2010. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 27, 2010 Pankaj*