IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.784 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision:23.09.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Raj Rani and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate, for Mr. D.P.Gupta, 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 is in appeal challenging liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The licence produced before the Tribunal showed that as against the particular licence No.3836/P, dated 07.07.2000, the name of the driver had not been shown. The Tribunal made an issue of the fact that the witness did not know the signature of the licensing Clerk and he was not present at the time when the entries were made and by the only fact that the name was not found against the particular entry, it could not be stated that the licence was fake or fabricated. The reasoning of the Tribunal is FAO No.784 of 2005 (O&M) - 2 - erroneous. The document was brought from proper custody and the entries contained in the document being a public document must have been acted upon. There was no reason to suspect the evidence tendered by the witness, who spoke with reference to the official records. 2. The award of the Tribunal therefore shall stand modified to provide for a liability of the insurer to satisfy the claimants and further provide for a right of recovery against the owner/insured. The award shall stand modified to the above extent and the appeal is allowed providing the insurer a right of recovery from the insured alone. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 23.09.2010 sanjeev