F.A.O.NO. 4793 OF 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 4793 OF 2009 Date of decision:7th October, 2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, having its registered office at SCO No. 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through Sh. Baljit Singh Deputy Manager (Legal) .......Appellant Versus Paramjit Kaur and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. None for respondent No. 5. Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 6 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, challenging the liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The driver produced a driving licence purported to have been issued by DTO, Bhatinda. The Insurance Company secured the presence of a witness cum DTO, Bhatinda who gave evidence to the F.A.O.NO. 4793 OF 2009 2 effect that no such licence had been issued by their office. Subsequently, the driver appears to have made claim that the licence had been issued only from DTO Licencing Authority, Khazur Sahib, District Taran Taran. The Insurance Company again took steps to summon the records for hearing date on 11.05.1999 but it appears that since it was election duty time they did not respond to the summon. Driver had in the mean while secured a letter from DTO and produced it before the Court, purported to have been issued by the Licencing Authority making an endorsement on the letter by the driver that the licence had been issued by the said authority. This letter according to the insurer is also a fabricated letter and that they have been obtained a different report stating that the driving licence had not been issued by the said authority as well. 2. Letter of communication from the authority to the driver ought not have been taken as true or genuine. Before putting the document through evidence is ought to have allowed the insurer to cross examine the witness. The reliance on the letter said to have been issued by DTO Taran Taran according to the learned counsel is erroneous. 3. Since there are conflicting versions regarding the genuineness of the licence which is definitely a relevant issue in the contest between the insurer and the insured, I am of the view that sufficient opportunity must be given to both parties to prove their respective contentions. The Insurance Company shall also be at liberty F.A.O.NO. 4793 OF 2009 3 to summon the original register from the authorities and establish its defence. 4. The award of the Tribunal in so far as it finds that the driving licence produced by the driver is genuine is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Sangrur only for a purpose for an adjudication on the validity or otherwise of the driving licence. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 5. Parties shall appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Sangrur on 15.11.2010. It is clarified that it shall not be even necessary to serve a notice on the claimants for the adjudication shall be to settle matter of dispute inter se between the insurer and the insured only. The amount which was deposited at the time of appeal, shall be dispatched to the credit of the case before the Tribunal. The withdrawal of the amount will depend on the result of the adjudication. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 7th October, 2010 Shivani Kaushik