FAO No. 2218 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2218 of 2000 Date of decision: October 12, 2010 M/s. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant Versus Kaptan Singh and others Respondents FAO No. 2219 of 2000 M/s. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant Versus Krishna Devi and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- Present : Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the respondents K. KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. Both the cases are connected and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the award on the ground that the driver did not have valid driving licence. The contention was that the licence produced by the driver bearing No. 4695 dated 8.4.1996 had not been issued by the Licensing Authority and clerk from the Licensing Authority has been examined FAO No. 2218 of 2000 2 as RW-1. He gave evidence to the effect that the particular licence had not been issued in the name of Satbir Singh. He also stated that there was no entry in the licence register for renewal also. In cross examination the suggestion was that the Register brought before the Court had not been property stitched and page numbers had not been marked. The suggestion was that the papers were changed deliberately and he was deposing falsehood. This contention was accepted by the Tribunal. 3. I can not accept the reasoning of the Tribunal specially when the driver did not choose to examine himself to given contra evidence to the extent that the Insurance Company did it by securing the original register. If papers were loose and same were not numbered, when the document was coming from the proper custody and the person giving evidence was an official of the particular authority who had issued the licence, the evidence of what the document contained ought to have been accepted unless the driver had denied the same and was prepared to vouch for the genuineness of the document which he sought to be rely upon. The Tribunal's finding that the Insurance Company had not established the driving licence to be fake is set aside. I hold that licence was fake and the Insurance Company's liability shall be to satisfy the claimants and secure recovery of the claimants same from the insured/owner. 4. Awards are modified and the appeals are allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) 12.10.2010 JUDGE reena