FAO No. 217 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 217 of 1995 Date of decision: October 12, 2010 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant Versus Bhupinder Singh and others Respondents FAO No. 218 of 1995 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant Versus Mangal Kaur and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- Present : Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Jatinder Nagpal, Advocate for the respondent Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent K. KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. Both the cases are connected and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the FAO No. 217 of 1995 2 liability on the ground that the policy said to cover the risk for vehicle bearing Registration No. PNC 3522 had not been insured at all with them. The particular cover note on which the owner of the vehicle was placing its reliance actually been issued for covering the risk of the owner to the vehicle of the same owner to the vehicle bearing Registration No. PBU 808. During the trial the original records relating to the cover note was produced by the insured and it contained details of the fact that it had been insured for an Ambassador Car 1980 Model in the name of Bant Singh son of Ujaggar Singh. The copy which was produced by the owner was confronted to the Development Officer who admitted the signature in the cover note but said that it was not however, issued with reference to their vehicle Registration No. PNC 3522. Significantly what was produced by the owner was not true copy which was said to have been issued by the Insurance Company but a photostat copy of the same. What the Development Officer was, therefore, admitting was the signature that was found in the photostat copy and not his actual signature in the document. He had given clear evidence of the fact that the particular cover note issued on that day against the particular member was with reference to an Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. PBU 808 and not with reference to jeep bearing Registration No. PNC 3522 in the cross examination. It was sought to be elicited that Insurance Company has not cancelled the policy for Registration No. PNC 3522 but the witness explained that it was not so cancelled because it was not even issued in the first place. The Tribunal reasoned that the Development Officer had admitted the signature found in the copy produced by the owner and he had FAO No. 217 of 1995 3 also admitted that Insurance business is obtained through agents and that cover notes are issued at their instance as established the document produced by the owner. 3. I find the reasoning of the Tribunal to be absolutely erroneous and perverse. In a case where the Insurance Company had taken the plea that the policy produced by the owner was forged and the policy had been issued in favour of one Nahar Singh, in the absence of production of the original of the cover note, the Tribunal could not take the policy to have been proved. It is a fundamental precept of law of evidence that when a document is stated to be forgery, the person that propounds on document has to establish the same. If an Insurance Company contends that no such cover note was issued, it can not be expected to produce any more then the details of the policy as it contained from their record. The owner of the vehicle was contending that he had purchased the jeep from Nahar Singh and the policy had been taken by him. Evidently owner was, therefore, speaking from knowledge which could be attributed only to his vendor who was the previous owner and could not have spoken from his personal knowledge. The Tribunal was ultimately relying on hearsay evidence and no attempt has made on the owners part to secure the presence of his vendor to say that he took the policy and the policy was for the vehicle bearing Registration No. PNC 3522. Even the reason as to why the original cover note was not produced by the owner of the vehicle was not given at the Tribunal. The Tribunal ought to have accepted the contention set up in defence by the Insurer that the owner of the vehicle was producing a forged insurance policy by using the policy details for another FAO No. 217 of 1995 4 vehicle in the name of the same person and the insurer could not have been made liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. 4. The appeals by the Insurance Company are allowed. 5. The awards of the Tribunal shall survive for execution by the claimant only against the owner of the vehicle and not against the insurer. (K. KANNAN) 12.10.2010 JUDGE reena