Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Mohinder Kaur Widow Of S. Mukhtiar ... on 30 September, 2010
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.1879 of 1995 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1879 of 1995
Date of Decision. 30.09.2010
National Insurance Company Ltd., Patiala through Shri Amandeep
Singh Admn. Officer, Regional Office, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh
......Appellant
Versus
Smt. Mohinder Kaur widow of S. Mukhtiar Singh and others
......Respondents
Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate
for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
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)
1. The insurance company is on appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. This aspect was proved by the insurer by examining RW-1 with reference to the records to say that the licence had not been issued by the Licensing Authority in his favour. However, there had been an endorsement of renewal in the licence and by the fact that the insurance company did not prove that the renewal was also fake, the Tribunal observed, by reference to decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sucha Singh 1994(1) R.R.R 439 that the insurance company had not proved the subsequent renewal also as fake and therefore, the insurance company could not be taken to FAO No.1879 of 1995 -2- have discharged its burden of proof. This law has undergone a change with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Davinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 698 that has held that even if the renewal is genuine and if the original issue of the licence is fake, the licence must only be taken to be fake. Evidently, it is a case where the insurance company had discharged its burden of proof that there had been a violation of terms of policy. There was no evidence of the driver or the owner to contradict the evidence elicited through the RW-1.
2. The award of the Tribunal is, under the circumstances, modified to provide for liability to satisfy the claim of the claimants only and recover the same against the insured.
3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 30, 2010 Pankaj*