IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5658 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision:28.09.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Panna Devi and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, 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 Insurance Company has been made liable in a case where it has adduced proof of the fact that a particular renewal of the licence, was fake but the Court held that the original issue of the licene had been made from Mumbai and the insurer had not produced proof that it was really issued only in the name of the very same driver. The evidence relating to the renewal alone could not satisfy the test of proof if the licence was fake. The Tribunal reasoned that the copy of the licence itself had been produced only by the insurer and after producing the same, it cannot also contend that the licence was not genuine. FAO No.5658 of 2002 (O&M) - 2 - 2. The learned counsel for the insurer points out that originally the statement had been filed by the driver and the owner jointly and the document had been tendered by them which was given a mark-A. After the document was tendered the insurer secured verification of the licene from the Licensing Authority at Una that proved that it had not been renewed by them at all. The Tribunal failed to note that the copy of the licence had not been produced in Court by the insurer to later deny it. On the other hand, it had been produced by the driver and that was proved to be not genuine in evidence through RW1 Manga Ram. 3. Under the circumstances, the award of the Tribunal making it liable without a provision for recovery against the insured/owner for violation of terms of the policy cannot be sustained. 4. The award is modified to the above extent and the appeal is allowed in terms thereof. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 28.09.2010 sanjeev