FAO No.6862 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6862 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 21.02.2011 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, having its office at Sector 45-B, Chandigarh now Regional Office at SCO 24-25, 1st Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Legal Manager-cum-Authorized Signatory Nigam Bhardwaj ......Appellant Versus Smt. Jarnailo and others .....Respondents 2. FAO No.6863 of 2010 (O&M) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, having its office at Sector 45-B, Chandigarh now Regional Office at SCO 24-25, 1st Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Legal Manager-cum-Authorized Signatory Nigam Bhardwaj ......Appellant Versus Baljeet Kaur and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advocate for the appellant. 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) C.M. No.4904-05 CII of 2011 Application is allowed. Amended grounds of appeal are taken on record. C.M. No.29673 & 29676-CII of 2010 Application is allowed. Delay of 89 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.6862 of 2010 (O&M) -2- FAO No.6862 & 6863 of 2010 1. The appeals are by the insurance company contending that there had been no proof that the owner had a valid permit at the relevant time to run the vehicle through a particular route as a transport vehicle. It was a case where the owner and the driver had remained ex parte. If the insurer would plead for violation of terms of policy, the duty shall be on the insurer to establish the same by appropriate evidence. The fact that the driver and owner remained ex parte will offer no premium to an insurer to make an assertion that there had been a violation of terms of policy. If no effort had been taken by the insurer at the trial to show that there had been no valid permit, it shall be impermissible for the appellant to contend that there had been a violation of terms of policy and that there had been no valid permit. 2. There are also grounds on the issue of quantum of compensation. The insurer shall not join issues on quantum and therefore, such a ground shall not also be permitted to be urged in the appeal. 3. The awards are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 21, 2011 Pankaj*