FAO No.1894 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1894 of 2000 Date of Decision.30.11.2010 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its Assistant Manager, Regional Office, SCO 36-37, Sector 17, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Kamlesh Kaur widow of Daljit Singh c/o Dr. Kamaljit Singh (Psychiatrist), Qila Road, Near Tehsil Complex, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 6. 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. The only issue in this appeal is the issue of liability of the insurance company for what it claimed to be a breach of terms of the policy by the fact that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The copy of the licence produced before the Court has two strands of evidence; one, at the instance of RW1, who was a DTO and another at the instance of RW-2, who was yet another officer of the same department. While RW-1 claimed that it was not issued in favour of the driver and that no fee had been paid for grant of licence, RW-2 referred to the fact that the licence had been issued and that was borne out through records. In such state of prevarication, the Tribunal FAO No.1894 of 2000 -2- decided to accept the evidence of RW-2 and observed that if RW-1 ever had to doubt the genuineness of the driving licence, which RW2 was producing before the Tribunal, RW-1 himself must have taken appropriate action by a complaint to the police. The Tribunal held that in such peculiar circumstances, it cannot be said that the insurance company had decided the burden of proof that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. 2. It might just as well be possible that the RW-1's evidence would be given preference in spite of evidence of RW-2 and taken a view which the insurance company is making. Such a reliance could be only because yet another line of reasoning is also possible. If two views are possible, I would rather go with the views expressed by the Tribunal where it has based its ultimate finding on appropriate legal reasoning. I affirm the view of the Tribunal and hold that the insurance company had not established that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. 3. The award is confirmed and liability of insurer as found by the Tribunal is also consequently affirmed. The appeal by the insurer is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 30, 2010 Pankaj*