IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1871 of 1999 Date of decision:20.09.2010 National Insurance Company ....Appellant versus Vaneeta Tiwari and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Gourav Singla, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Rahul Verma, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 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 liability regarding the negligence, quantum and liability. As regards the issue of negligence and quantum, the Insurance Company cannot have a grievance for they are no permissible defences under Section 149(2). It shall, therefore, be not possible to reopen the case on these grounds. 2. As regards the contention that the driver did not have a valid driving licence, the complaint of the learned counsel for the insurer is that no issue had been framed in spite of the fact that it had contended that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. I cannot allow the Insurance Company to take up this plea after 11 years before this Court. It ought to have been brought to the attention of the Tribunal and evidence must have been led on that basis. There is not even a complaint FAO No.1871 of 1999 - 2 - in the grounds that the insurer was not permitted to let in any evidence. If the insurer had called upon the driver or the owner to produce the driving licence and it was not produced, it may be possible to make an inference that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. With no attempt on its part to secure such a document, I cannot countenance a plea that the insurer did not have adequate opportunity to prove that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. If there was no specific issue, it was only because the insurer must be taken to have waived its right to defend the said ground and no evidence was led by the insurer on whom the burden heavily rested that there was a breach of term of the policy. 3. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 20.09.2010 sanjeev