IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5564 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision:22.11.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Pawan Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for Mr.V.K.Kapur, 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 only point for consideration in appeal is whether the liability cast on the insurer without providing for right of recovery against the owner could be justified or not. The accident had taken place on 01.06.2004 and the Insurance Company had produced the evidence of RW1-Kuldeep Singh to show that the renewal of the licence that had been issued to the driver Jaswant Singh was valid only upto 23.12.2002 and there had been no renewal subsequently. The Tribunal held that the Insurance company had succeeded in proving that the driving licence was valid only upto 2002 but failed to prove that the particulars of this FAO No.5564 of 2006 (O&M) - 2 - driving licence was supplied to the Insurance Company by the first respondent-driver. If a claim is made by the driver that he had some other driving licence that provided for either a fresh issue or a subsequent renewal, the onus of proof was on the owner and the driver to show that there had been such renewals subsequently. Significantly, in this case, the driver did not examine himself nor did the owner give any evidence that the driver had a valid driving licence. When a proof was adduced that the driving licence for the driver did exist, however, on the relevant date of the accident, it had not been renewed, there was no further requirement in law for also proving that he had no other evidence beyond what was stated to contain in the renewal register. 2. The finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company had not proved that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and that the owner had committed a breach of terms of policy, is set aside. On the contrary, it is held that the insure had discharged the onus and an adverse inference had to be drawn for the non-examination of the driver or the owner to give evidence contra for the effective driving licence at the relevant time of the accident. 3. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the liability of the insurer shall only be to satisfy the claim of the claimants and provide for a right of recovery against the insured/owner. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent only. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22.11.2010 sanjeev