FAO No.4013 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No.4013 of 2009 Date of decision March 3 , 2011 United India Insurance Company Limited ....... Appellant Versus Gurvinder Kaur and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. **** 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. The appeal is on the issue of driving license on a contention that the license was said to have been issued under license number 5005 had not been issued in the name of the driver Pawan Kumar. The Insurance Company brought the evidence of Jaspal Singh to say that particular license number 5005 had been issued to one Kuldip Singh on 4.4.1997 and that it was for driving scooter. The witness also confirmed that on 26.8.1997 the register closed with the license number 4677 and it did not have a bearing to license number 5005 in the name of Pawan Kumar. Although such categorical evidence with reference to the license register was produced, the Tribunal rejected evidence because to a query in the cross examination of the witness whether he knew that the Licensing Authority, Khandur Sahib had issued particular Ex.R-2 license, he said he FAO No.4013 of 2009 2 did not know. He also stated that there was no record available for entry 4677 to 5508 in their office or Vigilance Department. The cross examination was virtually against the document produced in Court. The Tribunal relied on the so called admission of witness and gave the benefit to the owner and driver to hold that the driver of Insurance Company had not established the fake character of license. I cannot accept an oral evidence that contradicts the documents itself. If the register produced in Court showed that license number 5005 had been issued in the name of Kuldeep Singh that would conclude the issue. If it is seen in the context that the alleged date of issue was 26.8.1997 for the driver Pawan Kumar also, it could not be true, since the entries concluded with license number 4677. Two matters were required to be shown; i) license number 5005 had not been issued in the name of Pawan Kumar but had not been issued in the name of Kuldeep Singh; and the ii) license number 5005 itself had not been issued on 26.8.1997 but had been issued on 4.4.1997 and that on 26.8.1997 the entries did not go beyond 4677. When documents produced showed categorically to the above facts, it shall not be correct for a Tribunal to rely on a so called admission of witness. An admission cannot contradict a document which is brought from lawful custody of the office. Evidently the witness was trying to help the driver even against the entries contained in the document. 2. The Insurance Company has established that the driver did not have a valid driving license. The liability of the Insurance Company shall therefore be only to satisfy the claimant and obtain recovery against the owner insurer and driver. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 3 , 2011 archana FAO No.4013 of 2009 3