IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1255 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision:22.11.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Karnail Singh and others ...Respondents FAO No.1256 of 2001 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Brij Lal 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. 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 appeals are at the instance of the Insurance Company challenging liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. On the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, I had passed an order on 13.09.2010 finding that the FAO No.1255 of 2001 (O&M) - 2 - Insurance Company had not adequate opportunity for adducing evidence and allowed the insurer to summon witnesses from the respective licensing authorities that were alleged to have issued the licence. The copy of the driving licence showed that the original licence had been issued by the Licensing Authority at Nasik and the renewal had been made at Patiala. 2. Today, only the witness summoned from DTO, Patiala is present. He was examined as RW1 and through him was exhibited RW1/1 that showed that against the particular licence number that was contained in the copy, the name of the driver alleged to have been involved in the accident had been mentioned. The register also showed that it was a renewal of a driving licence from Nasik. 3. The proof adduced by the insurer merely gets mid-way to say that the renewal of the licence showed that the driver had a driving licence duly renewed. The issue whether the original had been issued from Nasik and whether it was genuine would be proved only by securing the attendance of the witness from Nasik. Since the witness has not turned up in spite of Court's summons, the learned counsel seeks for a fresh process to be issued. 4. I do not want to delay the disposal only for an adjudication that is immediately relevant to settle the controversy between the insurer and the insured. The award of the Tribunal casting liability on the insurer in the first place to satisfy the claim of the claimant shall be upheld. The matter will now go for a fresh disposal only for a consideration of the fact whether a driving licence had been issued by the FAO No.1255 of 2001 (O&M) - 3 - licensing authority from Nasik or not. The finding as regards the driving licence rendered by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration for resolving the inter se dispute between the insurer and the insured on the issue relating to the driving licence. 5. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed with reference to the liability of the insurer and the quantum as far as the claimant is concerned and is set aside as regards the finding relating to the issue of driving licence. The finding rendered after remand by the Tribunal shall determine the issue of whether the insurer shall be provided with a right of recovery from the insured or not. The appeal is remanded to the Tribunal at Patiala for disposal according to law. 6. For appearance of parties before the Tribunal at Patiala on 21.12.2010. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22.11.2010 sanjeev