FAO No.5477 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5477 of 2005 Date of Decision. 23.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., its branch office at G.T. Road, Dandri Kalan, Ludhiana (Punjab) through Rajinder Sharma Administrative Officer, National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office-II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Rakesh Kumar son of Shri Phool Chand and others ......Respondents 2. FAO No.5478 of 2005 National Insurance Company Ltd., its branch office at G.T. Road, Dandri Kalan, Ludhiana (Punjab) through Rajinder Sharma Administrative Officer, National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office-II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Amar Singh son of Shri Ami Chand and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Manmohan, Advocate for Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. 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 is on appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving FAO No.5477 of 2005 -2- licence. The driver appears to have filed statement originally but later remained ex parte. The insurance company attempted to summon the driver but was not successful. The Tribunal held that the insurance company had not discharged the burden of proof. In a case where the driver does not appear or when he appears, he does not produce the licence, the simplest procedure, which the insurance company must have followed is to serve a notice on the driver to produce the driving licence and if it is still not produced, an adverse inference will be possible. A duty to produce a licence on demand is secured statutorily under Section 134(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The procedure is also laid down under Order 11 Civil Procedure Code for production of the document. The insurance company has not adopted any of the procedures. Resultant finding that the insurer had not discharged the burden cannot, therefore, be assailed. 2. The award are confirmed and the appeals is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 23, 2010 Pankaj*