Dismissed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dharam Singh and Os.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jan 2018FAO/4855/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

National Insurance Company Ltd. appealed against a Tribunal finding on the genuineness of a driver's licence. The Court held that the onus to prove invalidity lies with the insurer, which was not discharged due to lack of examination of the investigator and absence of cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the deposited sum of Rs. 25,000 transmitted to the Tribunal.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dharam Singh and Os. — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

FAO No.4855 of 2017

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.4855 of 2017 Date of Decision.08.01.2018

¶5

National Insurance Company Ltd.

¶6

.......Appellant

¶7

¶8

Dharam Singh and others

¶9

........Respondents

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

-.-

¶13

AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)

¶14

The insurance company is in appeal viz-a-viz the finding rendered on issue No.3 regarding the genuineness and validity of the driving licence held by the driver.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that report of the investigator Ex.RF was tendered but the same was not rebutted by other side and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken cognizance of the same. In fact, as per the aforementioned report, driving licence was issued in the name of Sanjay Kumar son of Tara Chand, resident of H.No.91, Ward No.5, Poultry Area, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal whereas the name and address of the driving licnece holder in Ex.RA is Vishal Kumar son of Om Parkash, resident of H.No.285, Ahun, Distt. Kaithal. Even the driving licence had been issued from the office of DTO, Bishnupur, District Manipur. The Tribunal ought to have given the recovery rights to the appellant with regard to amount of compensation awarded by it. Even sufficient opportunity has not been given to prove the report of the investigator.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and appraised the

¶17

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.01.10 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

FAO No.4855 of 2017 -2-

¶19

paper book. It is settled law that onus to prove invalidity or fakeness of the driving licence is on the insurance company. In the instant case, Ex.RA, driving licence has not been proved to be fake except tendering of the report by the investigator. Neither investigator has been examined in the Court by either party to be given a chance to cross-examine nor any application for additional evidence has been moved in this regard. The zimini orders are also wanting to show that sufficient opportunity has not been given.

¶20

In the absence of any such material, I do not find any reason to differ with the finding rendered by the Tribunal. No ground for interference is made out. The appeal stands dismissed. However, the statutory amount of `25,000/- deposited before this Court at the time of filing of the appeal shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for part satisfaction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶21

	(A	MIT RAWAL) JUDGE
January 08, 2018
Pankaj*	Whether reasoned/speaking	Yes
	Whether reportable	No

¶22

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.01.10 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dharam Singh and Os.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dharam Singh and Os.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Davinderjit Singh @ Inderjit Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab

Santosh Vs State of Punjab and Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sunita Devi and Ors.

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Babli & Ors.

Pradeep and Ors. Vs Manjeet Kaur Gandhok and Ors.

Shashi Jain Vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors.