F.A.O.NO. 1637 OF 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1637 OF 2008 Date of decision:20th July, 2010 National Insurance Company Limited .......Appellant Versus Smt. Sabiri and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal denying liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and the claim arise out of passengers in a goods vehicle for which there was no valid insurance cover. 2. As regards the contention that the driver did not have a valid driving licence, the attempt of the insurer was to produce F.A.O.NO. 1637 OF 2008 2 report of the surveyor that on an investigation he found that the licence had not been renewed beyond 21.10.1992 and the accident took place on 18.06.2004. The copy of the licence Mark-A refers to person Yashpal Singh. The Tribunal has reasoned that there was not even a proof that Yashpal Singh was the person who drove the vehicle and the licence had any bearing to him. It was in evidence that the driver had also died in the accident and there was no clear evidence that the driving licence related only to the driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal also found that the Insurance Company had not discharged the burden of proof that the driver did not have a valid driving licence by securing the original register. Mere reference to surveyor report was found by the Court to be insufficient. The report of the DTO which is R-1 was again not relied on, since licence the register was not brought the court nor was any evidence of the Licencing Authority produced before this Court. I find no flaw in the reasoning of the Tribunal. I confirm the finding that the Insurance Company had not proved that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The fact was that Insurance Company did not even prove that the vehicle was driven by the particular driver whose copy of the licence was before court. 3. Even as regards the contention that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, it was in evidence through the claimant that he was labourer working with the insured owner and he was driving the vehicle as labourer. A labourer is entitled to a compulsory insurance cover under Section 147 of the Motor F.A.O.NO. 1637 OF 2008 3 Vehicles Act. The plea that the deceased was gratuitous of passengers is therefore, again incorrect. 4. There is no reason for interference with the award of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 20th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik