F.A.O.NO. 1870 OF 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1870 OF 2001 Date of decision:9th September, 2010 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., City Branch Office, 14/18, Lal Bahadur Shatri Marg, Allahabad (UP) through its regional office, Sector 17 Chandigarh through District Manager. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Babita Devi and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd./appellant. Mr. Paul S.Saini, Advocate, for the New India Assurane Co. Ltd./respondent No. 5. None for the remaining respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is against the award, making the insured and the insurer of a bus liable on the ground that the bus was driven negligently and caused the accident, resulting in death of the driver of a canter-truck. At the trial, the contention by the insurer was that the driver of the insured's bus was not having a valid driving licence. The evidence collected by the Local Commissioner from the Licencing Authority that culminated in a Report was with reference to a copy of the licence taken from the F.A.O.NO. 1870 OF 2001 2 Criminal Court which was alleged to have been seized by the police at the time when the case was registered against the driver that proved that the licence was fake. 2. The Court did not accept the evidence as conclusive on an observation that there was nothing to show that the driver gave the copy of the licence. The verification had been made with reference to the copy, that was seized by the police and produced before the Criminal Court. Its value could not have been rejected unless a positive evidence has been let in by the driver that he had some other licence. The owner remained ex parte and the driver gave no better evidence. The finding of the Tribunal that the licence was not proved to be fake was clearly wrong. The liability of the insurer could be only to satisfy the claimants and would have a right of recovery against the Owner Sarla Singh Chauhan who is arrayed as respondent No. 3. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 9th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik