Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

New India Assurance Co vs Sudesh Rani And Others ... on 29 June, 2010

Author: K.Kannan

Bench: K.Kannan

FAO NO. 2981 OF 1996                    1


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                 CHANDIGARH

                    FAO NO. 2981 OF 1996
                    DECIDED ON 29.6.2010.


New India Assurance Co.                            -----Appellant

Vs.

Sudesh Rani and others                             -------Respondent.


CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN


Present:- Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate
          with Mr. Shailender Sharma, Advocate
          for the appellant.

          Mr. P. S. Rana, Advocate
          for the respondent no.7.

                    ***

K. Kannan, J (Oral)

The Insurance Company denies the liability on the ground that the driver, who drove the tractor, did not have effective valid driving licence. The driver himself had been examined in this case when he produced the driving licence as R1, which showed that the same had been issued by the licensing authority, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra and he was authorized to drive the scooter, motorcycle and tractor. No cross examination had been made to elicit that the license was not true or was there a suggestion that he has no valid license to run a tractor. However, the insurance company had also examined the witness from the licensing authority to say that he had license to drive only a scooter. It is not very clear as to how two distinct licenses had been issued but I do not want to run into such a controversy in FAO NO. 2981 OF 1996 2 view of the fact when the driver was in Court and produced document R1, nothing was elicited in his cross examination doubting the genuineness of R1 or denying that he had a driving licence to drive a tractor also.

The findings of the Tribunal holding the Insurance Company to be liable to satisfy the claim is under the circumstances fully justified and there is no scope for intervention in appeal. The appeal is subsequently dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to the costs.




29.06.2010                                         ( K.KANNAN )
mamta                                                  JUDGE