FAO No.3087 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3087 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 20.04.2011 National Insurance Co. Ltd. having its Regional Office at SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney Mrs. Vijay Kumari, Asstt. Manager ......Appellant Versus Smt. Anju Bala wd/o Sh. Narender Kumar @ Nandi and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The insurance company is on appeal against the liability cast on it without a provision for recovery against the owner on the ground that the driver licence produced by the driver was fake. The insurance company was relying on verification report secured by its official that the driving licence was not genuine. No attempt was made by the insurance company to secure the attendance of official from the licensing authority to give evidence with reference to the original records. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company states that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and if the verification report had been produced before it, it ought to have been acted upon the same. I do not think it is a general FAO No.3087 of 2011 (O&M) -2- proposition emerging in a situation where the insurance company attempts to exclude itself from liability on the ground that there had been violation of terms of policy. The burden of proof of establishing such violation is on the insurance company. Mere verification report secured through the official of the insurance company cannot substitute the legal requirement of having to establish that the driving licence was not really genuine. A verification report which is not statutory in character and which has no legal grounding for a Court to act upon was rightly rejected by the Court. Even if the fact that Guwahati was a far away place and it was difficult to summon a witness from there, at least the insurance company could have sought for appointment of a Commissioner to secure appropriate evidence before the Tribunal to affirm that the copy of driving licence, which had been produced before the Tribunal was not genuine and that it had not been issued by the licensing authority. The liability cast on the insurance company providing to the insured a right of indemnity, under the circumstances, was perfectly justified and I find no scope to interfere with the same. 3. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. The amount of Rs.25,000/-, which has been deposited before this Court at the time of preferring the appeal is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal for part satisfaction of the award. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 20, 2011 Pankaj*