IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1429 of 1998 Date of decision:16.09.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Ali Mohd. and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.1424 of 1998 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Surender Kumar and others ...Respondents III. FAO No.1425 of 1998 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Dharam Chand and others ...Respondents IV. FAO No.1426 of 1998 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Sanjeev Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. R.M.Suri, Advocate, for the appellant. None 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 ? ---- FAO No.1429 of 1998 - 2 - K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. All the four appeals are at the instance of the Insurance Company challenging liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The driver produced a copy of the licence that showed No.78326 of the year 1988. At the trial, a report was produced to the effect that the licence was not genuine and a document which was produced through RW2, a Clerk at the office showed that the licence No.78326 of 1985 had been issued in the name of one Kallu Ram. The attempt was, therefore, to show that it did not stand in the name of Rustam, the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. The Tribunal pointed out that the licence which the driver claimed that he had obtained, had been issued to him in the year 1988 and the number was 8326 of 1988. The witness RW3 himself admitted that he had not brought any book in the year 1988 and that the register produced by him related only to the year 1985. The Tribunal, therefore, found that there was a contradiction regarding the year of issuance of the licence and the report that had been given by the Regional Transport Authority. 2. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that the documents were produced and the witnesses were summoned by coercive process and they had deliberately not brought the relevant records. It cannot avail to a party to complain that the document produced by their own witness was not correct and if such a contention were to be accepted, it cannot lead anywhere, for, only through the document produced that any inference could be made whether a particular licence was fake or not. This would only so that the insurer FAO No.1429 of 1998 - 3 - had not effectively discharged the burden of proof on it to establish that the licence was not genuine. 3. The issue of liability could not be held in favour of the insurer. The issues relating to compensation will fall outside the scope of enquiry in appeal by the insurer. 4. The awards are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 16.09.2010 sanjeev