FAO No.3193 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3193 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 25.04.2011 New India Assurance Company Ltd., Sector 17, Chandigarh through its duly authorized officer ......Appellant Versus Smt. Purni Devi wife of Shri Nasib Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. On a remand from this Court, the case was taken up before the Tribunal when the owner was impleaded as a party. The claimant, who was a third party relied on a copy of cover note to say that the owner had insured his vehicle with the insurance company arrayed as the 3rd respondent. The contention of the insurance company was that the owner had not been served personally and he had been only served through publication and the claimant had not established that the policy was genuine or that the owner had taken policy of insurance with the insurance company. In my view, it is a pleading for proposition, which is far fetched. While, I would admit the contention that it is the claimant, who has to establish that a vehicle was duly insured to make the insurer liable, the onus of proof will be taken as discharged in case where the claimant files some evidence giving details of insurance and FAO No.3193 of 2011 (O&M) -2- also a cover note. The contention of the counsel for the insurance company is that the cover note could have been forged. If the insurance company cannot secure presence of the insured or shall not be in a position to place definite evidence as to the details of the policy as contained in the cover note, I would take onus of proof discharged by the claimant and the insurance company has not placed the best of evidence that is possible. The insurance company cannot deny that the policy was not issued even on account of also a contention that the claimant has not proved that the policy has ever been taken by the insured with the insurer. 3. Learned counsel for the insurance company also states that copy of the insurance cover was placed by the claimant only at the appellate stage before this Court when a remand was done and the insurance company could not be made liable for interest for the period when the case was pending. If I am accepting the contention that the petitioner had discharged his onus of proof on him that the insured's vehicle was insured with the insurance company since it was a case where the insurance company was prepared to admit the liability, the delayed furnishing of details cannot be a ground for denying the claimant a right to secure interest. The award of interest from the date of petition, under such circumstances, is also found reasonable and I see no reason to interfere with the same. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 25, 2011 Pankaj*