FAO No. 2611 of 2009 and FAO No. 2612 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2611 of 2009 Date of decision September 15, 2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited ....... Appellant Versus Hanuman and others ........ Respondents FAO No. 2612 of 2009 The New India Assurance Company Limited ....... Appellant Versus Molu Ram and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. R. C. Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant. None for the State of Punjab. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG., Haryana. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for U.T., Chandigarh. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. Both the appeals involve a common issue and are disposed of by a common order. 2. Both the appeals are by the Insurance Company contending that the driver did not have a valid driving license at the relevant time. The indemnity provided to the owner in spite of breach of terms of the policy is erroneous. At a hearing on 10.11.2009, this Court has directed notice to be issued to the Secretary State Transport, Punjab, Haryana and U.T., seeking for details of the directions given in the FAO No. 2611 of 2009 and FAO No. 2612 of 2009 respective States for issuance of driving license, verification, eligibility etc. The issue is quite serious since any number of cases are filed before Courts and the issue of validity of driving licenses comes up for consideration. I would defer this prevalent malice for a different line in some other case and take up the cases for hearing on merits. 3. The Insurance Company has attempted to prove before this Court that the driving license issued to the driver was not genuine by examining a Clerk from the Licensing Authority that the driving license could not be true by subjecting the driver to the cross examination who claimed that he had obtained driving license from DTO Ranchi. He had in the cross examination admitted that he had never visited Ranchi. The Insurance Company examined RW-3 Sahil Sharma who was appointed as a Local Commissioner to visit the office of Licensing Authority, Ranchi and his report Ex.R-8 shows that alleged driving license was never got issued by the office of DTO Ranchi. The evidence clearly established that the license produced was fake. The Tribunal still found that the driver had a valid driving license by referring to the driver's evidence that he had shown his license to the owner. The question of bona fide must be spoken by the owner himself and if he had given evidence for his own belief that the driver had a valid license then the insurer could obtain the benefit of indemnity . A surrogate evidence through the driver cannot avail to the owner's benefit. 4. The liability of the insurer shall therefore by only to satisfy the claimants and will have a right of recovery against the owner insured. The awards are modified and the appeals are allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 15, 2010 archana FAO No. 2611 of 2009 and FAO No. 2612 of 2009