FAO No.1228 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1228 of 2003 Date of Decision. 27.07.2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited through its Asstt. Manager, Regional office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17, Chandigarh .........Appellant Versus Suman Bansal widow of Bhagwan Dass son of Kishan Chand aged about 42 years and others .......Respondents 2. FAO No.1229 of 2003 The New India Assurance Company Limited through its Asstt. Manager, Regional office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17, Chandigarh .........Appellant Versus Sonali Bansal aged about 10 years minor daughter of late Shri Bhagwan Dass and others .......Respondents 3. FAO No.1230 of 2003 The New India Assurance Company Limited through its Asstt. Manager, Regional office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17, Chandigarh .........Appellant Versus Suman Bansal widow of Bhagwan Dass son of Kishan Chand aged about 42 years and others .......Respondents 4. FAO No.1231 of 2003 The New India Assurance Company Limited through its Asstt. Manager, Regional office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17, Chandigarh .........Appellant Versus Shiraj Bansal aged about 14 years minor son of Late Shri Bhagwan Dass and others .......Respondents FAO No.1228 of 2003 -2- Present: Mr. N.K. Khosla, 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. All the four cases arise out of the same accident and address the same issue relating to defence of the insurance company that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. In evidence, it produced a report of the licensing authority that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The driver himself had given a copy of licence and marked as R-4. The Tribunal reasoned that a mere production of a report will not be sufficient to discredit the copy of the licence produced and when no evidence had been let in with reference to the report by a person connected with the original register or a person from the office of the transport officer, the insurer could not be said to have discharged the burden of proof. 2. It is also contended that petition under Section 163-A was not maintainable, for the insured vehicle was hit against a stationary vehicle and negligence could not be attributed to the insured's vehicle. The proof of negligence is irrelevant in a claim under Section 163-A and therefore, I am afraid I cannot accept the contention made by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer. 3. I find myself in full agreement with the reasoning of the Tribunal and I dismiss the appeal filed by the insurer in all the cases FAO No.1228 of 2003 -3- affirming the liability cast on it. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 27, 2010 Pankaj*