FAO No.2249 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2249 of 2000 Date of Decision. 09.09.2010 The National Insurance Company through its Divisional Manager, E- 13, Hauz Khas Market, New Delhi (insurer of Truck No.HR-38-5783) ......Appellant Versus Harpal Singh Cheena s/o Banta Singh and others ......Respondents 2. FAO No.2250 of 2000 The National Insurance Company through its Divisional Manager, E- 13, Hauz Khas Market, New Delhi (insurer of Truck No.HR-38-5783) ......Appellant Versus Harpal Singh Mangat s/o Ranjit Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Rajat Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 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. The insurance company has preferred the appeals against awards arising out of the same accident at the instance of two claimants. The defence before the Tribunal was that the driver was not duly licenced and sought to rely on its report secured through its FAO No.2249 of 2000 -2- investigator that the licence had not been issued by the Licensing Authority at Dholpur (Rajasthan). Subsequently, the insurer had taken summons for production of records from the Licensing Authority and the summons had been returned with the purported endorsement that the licence had not been issued with the alleged particulars mentioned in the copy produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was not convinced that any such endorsement on the summon could constitute proof of the fact that there was no valid entry in the register of licences against the name of the driver. The Tribunal has also observed that even the report of the surveyor could not have been conclusive, having regard to the fact that it revealed that the particular register containing Sr. No.11561 was not at all available at the office. The Tribunal, in my view, could not be faulted in its reasoning, for without securing the attendance of the witness from the Licensing Authority and without any evidence that the particular licence had either not been issued or was issued in the name of some one else, it could not be contended that the insurance company had discharged its burden of proof. I see no reason to differ with the view of the Tribunal and confirm the awards in all respects. 2. The appeals filed by the insurance company are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 09, 2010 Pankaj*