[229] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 24.02.2026 New India Assurance Company Limited …Appellant versus Amarjit Kaur and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company.

Mr. Bharat, Advocate for Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. None for respondent No.5.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] The insurance company is in appeal.

[2] The solitary ground raised is with respect to findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue No.4.

[3] Counsel for the appellant has argued that the driver of the insured vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. However, the Tribunal has answered Issue No.4 against the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has relied upon driving license (Exhibit R3) issued on 17.02.2009 which was valid up to 16.09.2015, which includes the date of the accident i.e. 03.02.2015.

[4] Mr. Gupta, counsel for the appellant, has placed reliance upon Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to submit that the driver was a resident of Ambala City in the State of Haryana, whereas the driving license has been issued by the State of Nagaland. The said issue has already been deliberated upon by this Court in FAO-4605-2017 titled as ‘New India Assurance Company Limited versus Pooja and others’, wherein it was observed as under:-

“5. Appellant-insurance company has assailing finding on issue No.3 claiming that the driving license produced on record Ex.R-3 being not on smart card, is not a valid driving license. Counsel for the appellant is not in a position to dispute that no evidence was led by the insurance company to prove that the license was fake. Merely for the reason that the driving license was issued by State of Nagaland, the same cannot be held to be a fake driving license. This Court in FAO No.2379 of 2013 titled as ‘National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ravinder Kaur and others’ decided on

05.02.2025 dealt with the issue and observed as under:-

“9. The provision uses two different expressions i.e. ‘ordinarily resides’ and ‘carries on business’. From perusal of Ex.R-2, it is evident that the driver was ordinarily resident of Bathinda. However, there is no evidence to show that he was not carrying on business in Nagaland. It is the appellant-the insurer, who is claiming breach of the contract. Likewise, there is no evidence to show that case of licensee does not fall within Section 9(1)(ii). It is the appellant who avers and alleges breach of conditions of insurance.

10. Onus was upon the appellant-insurer to prove that the driving licence was unlawfully renewed. No evidence was led by the insurance company to discharge the said onus. Reliance upon observations made in the case of Kuljeet Singh (supra) is misplaced. In the said case, licence clerk from the licencing authority was examined. He produced the record and it is thereafter that the Court invoke Section 9 to hold that the licence was not lawfully renewed.

11. The plea raised is not based upon any evidence. The evidence led by the appellant remained discrepant before the Tribunal.”

6. Same is the view formulated by Coordinate Bench in FAO3596-2017 titled as ‘New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Veena Devi and others’ decided on 07.12.2022 and FAO- 3244-2016 titled as ‘Ombir and another vs. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. and others’ decided on 22.02.2019. Apart therefrom, there is no evidence to prove that insured was negligent. Reference can be made to following observations made by Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh reported as (2004) 3 SCC 297:-

“(ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Section

149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.

(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid