FAO No. 3424 of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3424 of 1999 Date of decision March 1, 2011 National Insurance Company Ltd. ....... Appellant Versus Ashok Kumar and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeal is by the Insurance Company on the issue of liability on the ground that the driver was not duly licensed at the time of accident. The accident had taken place on 11.11.1996. The copy of the license produced before Court by the driver showed that renewal had been effected up to 12.10.1999. It was this renewal endorsement which was in challenge by the insurer and a Clerk from the Licensing Authority had been examined as RW-2, who gave evidence with reference to the original records. The records showed that it was issued on 16.1.1989 and the same was renewed up to 15.1.1994. The license was for driving scooter/motor cycle only. There was definite evidence by RW-2 with reference to the records that there had been no renewal after 15.1.1994. He clarified that if there was a renewal of a driving license the entry is FAO No. 3424 of 1999 2 normally made in the very same register and if it is not there in the register, a renewal shown in document produced by the driver cannot be genuine. The Tribunal rejected this evidence and made the insurer liable to indemnify the insured. I find the reasoning to be erroneous and completely dilutes the evidence brought through original register maintained by the Transport Authority. The document which is maintained in the usual course of official transaction is presumed to be correct in the light of Section 114 of the Evidence Act and I will reject the endorsement of renewal in the driving license produced by the driver as having been fabricated. 2. The liability of the Insurance Company was therefore, to be only to satisfy the claim and it shall have a right of recovery against the owner and the driver. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 1, 2011 archana