Civil Revision No.5287 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5287 of 2008 Date of decision: 6.2.2009 New India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Amardeep Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. R.C.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Maharaj Baksh Singh, Advocate for respondents S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner-insurer examined the Surveyor at the trial and, thereafter, also applied for recording of statement of an official of the Licensing Authority on commission because that witness is based at Gwalior and he cannot be compelled to attend the Court. The plea was declined by the learned Trial Court by observing that the petitioner-insurer had already examined the Surveyor who had “verified the license and tendered the report of the licensing authority”. In that context, the Tribunal also noticed that respondents no.1 and 2 (driver and registered owner therein) were not contesting the petition and, that being so, “there is nothing on record to rebut the report of RW1.” Learned counsel for the petitioner-insurer has shown to this Court a certified copy of the statement made by the Surveyor (Dr. Joseph R. Masih son of late Shri Kirpal Masih, resident of House no.49, Shivalik Vihar, Naya Gaon, District Mohali.). In the course of that statement, the witness placed on record the original investigation report (Ex. R-1). However, in the course of the cross-examination, he conceded (as correct) Civil Revision No.5287 of 2008 -2- a suggestion that he had not verified the licence from the licensing authority. He had earlier stated in the examination-in-chief that he had obtained the copy of driving licence from the (registered) owner. The procedural law is categorical in indicating that a witness within a particular distance can be compelled to appear before the Court; while beyond a particular distance cannot be compelled to appear in the Court and their statement has to be recorded on commission. Gwalior, where the licensing authority is based, is concededly in the latter category. The insurer company perhaps wants to prove that the driving licence aforementioned was not proper. The plea proposed to be raised thereby would be for exoneration from liability. Whether the plea comes to be accepted or negatived is a matter which would be for adjudication by the Tribunal. It is not appropriate to observe that evidence of the witness being un-rebutted, there is no need to examine the indicated witness on commission as it would, even otherwise, amount to duplication of evidence. How, exactly, the allowance of the plea would amount to duplication of evidence is beyond comprehension. It is not a case where there has been any inordinate delay on the part of the Insurer to put in the plea for examination of Gwalior based witness. In the light thereof, petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand set aside. Learned Tribunal shall proceed to take necessary steps for examination of (an official of) the licensing authority , Gwalior on commission. The stay order dated 29.9.2008 shall stand vacated. The vacation of stay order shall be communicated to the Court concerned forthwith. February 06, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge