FAO No.1066 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1066 of 2003 Date of Decision. 29.07.2010 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Admn. Officer .........Appellant Versus Paramjit Kaur widow of Mukhtiar Singh son of Sham Singh and others .......Respondents 2. FAO No.1067 of 2003 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Admn. Officer .........Appellant Versus Garib Singh son of Buda Singh resident of Ladwa Plot Farm, Murtzapur, P.S. Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior 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. Both appeals are at the instance of the insurance company and taken up together arising out of same cause of action. The insurance company was fastened with the liability to indemnify the insured, although it took the plea that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and produced before the Tribunal, a certificate from FAO No.1066 of 2003 -2- the licensing authority that the licence was fake. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the insurance company would contend that the procedure of obtaining certificates from the licensing authority came after a circular was issued by the Registrar of this Court to all the District Judges providing for a procedure for securing certificates from authorities relating to the genuineness of driving licences produced before the Tribunals. Vide this circular, learned Senior Counsel would submit that litigants and particularly the insurance companies were led to believe that once such a certificate was produced that itself amounted to proof of whether the licence was true or not. In this case, when such a certificate was produced and when no evidence was adduced, the Tribunal held that it was insufficient to hold that the insurer had discharged the burden of proof. For want of appropriate evidence to substantiate the certificate, the Tribunal held that the insurance company was bound to indemnify the insured and answerable to the claims of the claimants. 2. I cannot find any exception to the approach of the Tribunal and I hold that a circular from this Court on the administrative side suggesting a procedure for obtaining a certificate cannot in any way fetter the judicial approach of the Tribunal that such certificate would require appropriate proof by a person, who issues the same or by somebody, who is acquainted with the register to give evidence for the same. The learned Senior Counsel also states that if it were not found sufficient, they must have the opportunity of proving the contentions raised before this Court now. Cases are disposed of in FAO No.1066 of 2003 -3- large numbers relating to defences of insurance companies that take up pleas, inter alia, relating to the validity of driving licence. There is need for consistency for parties to organize themselves in defence and in formulating the points for arguments. It cannot be ad hoc approach to allow for additional evidence at the appellate stage for what the parties have failed to do at the trial. The insurance company ought to have known that the burden was on it to establish the alleged fake nature of the licence and when it had secured a certificate, it had done one part of the work. The nature of proof that ought to have been let in will be governed always by the procedure established by law and it cannot be contended that an insurer, who is led through trial with able assistance of lawyer did not know what it should have done to prove their certificates. I cannot accept the plea that a permission must be given to the insurance company at the Appellate Court for establishing that the licence was fake. 3. The decision of the Tribunal insofar as it finds that the insurance company had not produced proof that the licence was fake, it committed no error and I see no reason to interfere. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. 4. In the connected case in FAO No.1067 of 2003, the additional point which is involved is that the claim to damage to a property for an insurer ought to have stayed restricted to Rs.6,000/- for an Act Policy and the assessment of damage, which was made by the Tribunal at Rs.20,000/- and making the insurer liable for the entire amount is legally impermissible. I uphold the contention of FAO No.1066 of 2003 -4- the appellant and would restrict the liability to what the statute permits under Section 147(2) and the amount in excess of Rs.6,000/- shall be recovered only from the owner of the vehicle namely Bhupinder Singh-respondent No.3 with interest. The appeal is partly allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 29, 2010 Pankaj*