FAO No.497-516 & 544 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.497-516 & 544 of 2002 Date of Decision. 08.09.2010 National Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ......Appellant Versus Reshma d/o Veer Bhan (minor) and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the claimants-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. All these cases arise for consideration only as regards the inter se dispute between the insurer and the insured. I am informed that the award has been satisfied by the insurer and the appellant is prosecuting the appeal only for a consideration of the plea that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and hence, the insurer ought to have been provided with a right of recovery from the insured. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the insurer points out that in its bid to prove that the driver did not have a valid driving licence, the insurer had taken steps to secure the evidence of the Licensing Authority at Raipur. The witness had been served but he FAO No.497-516 & 544 of 2002 -2- did not appear. An application appears to have been filed subsequently for issuing commission for carrying the verification of the genuineness of the licence. The Tribunal did not accede to such a plea and closed the evidence and ultimately, held that the insurer had not proved its contention that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. 3. Having regard to the fact that the insurer had to take the burden of large number of claims, it will be only appropriate that the insurer is allowed to exercise its right of defence under Section 149(2) to establish that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The Tribunal ought to have considered its plea for securing the access of the witness when he had been earlier served and disobeying the Court by not appearing before the Tribunal. I am of the view that the interest of justice would require that an opportunity must be given to the insurer to establish his evidence relating to driving licence. 4. The insured has been served but he has chosen not to appear. If an opportunity were to be given to the insurer to secure the presence of the Licensing Authority or its representative from Raipur and to examine the official with reference to the relevant records, the matter could be properly done by the Tribunal itself after duly serving a notice on the insured and then giving an opportunity to both parties to enter a contest on inter se liability for satisfaction of the awards. 5. The awards of the Tribunal are set aside only to the limited extent of considering the claim of the insurer against the insured on FAO No.497-516 & 544 of 2002 -3- a plea that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The claimants shall not come to any harm and the awards passed in their favour are retained. The matter is remitted to the MACT at Panipat. The Tribunal will dispose of the issue relating to the validity of a driving licence and issue process on payment of necessary charges and afford opportunity to both parties to give evidence in accordance with law. 6. For appearance of parties in person or through counsel before the Tribunal on 09.11.2010. The registry is directed to despatch the files to the Tribunal immediately. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 08, 2010 Pankaj*