Punjab-Haryana High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Pardhan Singh And Others on 5 August, 2010
Author: K.Kannan
Bench: K.Kannan
F.A.O.NO. 1260 OF 2005 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O.NO. 1260 OF 2005
Date of decision:5th August, 2010
United India Insurance Company Limited
.......Appellant
Versus
Pardhan Singh and others
........Respondents
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN
Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate,
for the respondents.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes/No
K.Kannan, J.(Oral)
1. The Insurance Company challenges the finding of liability to satisfy the award on the ground that in a related accident claim against the very same owner and insurer the insured had proved that the licence was fake and award was filed in the case but the Tribunal took dissimilar view that the owner was not expected to conduct a roving enquiry into whether the licence was true or not. It found that there was a renewal endorsement and the insurer had not established that the owner had committed a willful violation of terms of the policy.
2. Though I will not rest the reasoning of the Tribunal F.A.O.NO. 1260 OF 2005 2 that the owner could not be expected to make a roving enquiry as correct, I would still expect the owner to give at least a statement that he believed the licence to be true. No such evidence is available. Even then the insurer cannot be said to have made this case any better. The finding in another case by another Tribunal that the licence was fake, cannot be conclusive by same person in another Tribunal. In another case, if we are looking for a principle of law, it shall only be taken squarely against the insurer for decision of one Tribunal, cannot be binding on another Tribunal unless it was between the same parties. The evidence of the Licencing Authority ought to have been made available or this Insurer must have pressed for joint trial of all cases arising out of the same accident. If they are dealt with separately the parties take the risk of dissimilar views. It cannot be stated that insurer did not know that there were several claimants arising out of the same accident. The Insurer has to take consequence of allowing independent trials.
3. Under the circumstances I have no doubt in my mind that the insurer had not established that the driving licence was fake before the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
[K.KANNAN] JUDGE 5th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik