IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2180 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision:21.09.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Gurdev Kaur and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.2181 of 1999 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Amarjit Kaur and others ...Respondents III. FAO No.2182 of 1999 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Jaswinder Kaur and others ...Respondents IV. FAO No.2183 of 1999 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Balbir Singh and others ...Respondents V. FAO No.2184 of 1999 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Karamjit Singh and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Tejinderpal Singh,Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.S.Rangpuri, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- FAO No.2180 of 1999 (O&M) - 2 - 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. In all the five cases, the point urged by the insurer was that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The accident took place on 09.04.1995 and the licence produced at the trial had been issued on 20.11.1997. Evidence was secured from the licensing authority to show that the alleged renewal of a fresh licence on 20.11.1997, was not genuine. The same document showed that the old driving licence was R-12414 and it was valid from 04.01.1990 to 02.07.1996. The attempt of the insurer must have been therefore to secure the document relating to the driving licence R-12414 and not with reference to a renewal licence which was produced before the Tribunal. If the driver was justifying the driving licence with reference to the renewal licence it would have availed to the insurer to contend that since the renewal was a fake, the driving licence itself could not be relied upon. On the other hand, the renewal was purported to have been made on 20.11.1997 which was after the date of the accident. On the date of the accident, a currency of a driving licence which was valid till 02.07.1996 existed. Without an attempt on the part of the insurer to show that the particular old licence was a fake, the insurer could not be said to have discharged his burden. 2. The learned counsel for the insurer would contend that the original licence itself was not produced. It could not have been produced also for the simple reason that if a fresh renewal had been made and even FAO No.2180 of 1999 (O&M) - 3 - if that was proved to be fake, it cannot be expected that the old licence could still have been retained. The insurer must have undertaken enquiry with reference to the particular details revealed in the document filed in Court. The learned counsel also points out to the fact that the owner had given evidence that he had checked up the driving licence and found it to be true. According to him, such an evidence could not be true at all for the renewal licence was on 20.11.1997 and the accident had taken place even earlier on 09.04.1995. This evidence must be appreciated in the context of the fact that the driver claimed that he had an earlier licence that was valid upto 02.07.1996 and the reference of the owner that he had verified the licence could not be with reference to the renewal licence before the Court but it must only be with reference to the first licence which was said to have been issued on 04.01.1990. 3. In view of the fact that the insurer had not brought out clearly that the driver did not have a valid driving licence, consistent with the position of law that the burden of proof was only on the insurer, the Tribunal was justified in holding the insurer liable not merely to satisfy the claimants but also provide for a right of indemnity against the insured. 4. The awards are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 21.09.2010 sanjeev