F.A.O.NO. 1048 OF 2002(O&M) and F.A.O.NO. 1049 OF 2002(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1048 OF 2002(O&M) Date of decision:22nd September, 2010 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Yamuna Nagar having its Regional Office at SCO No. 122-23, Sector-17, Chandigarh, through its duly constituted attorney. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Bala and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1049 OF 2002(O&M) United India Insurance Company Ltd., Yamuna Nagar having its Regional Office at SCO No. 122-23, Sector-17, Chandigarh, through its duly constituted attorney. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Balesh and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. None 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 is in appeal challenging the liability on the ground that at the relevant time at the time of the accident, the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The accident F.A.O.NO. 1048 OF 2002(O&M) and F.A.O.NO. 1049 OF 2002(O&M) 2 had taken place on 2.04.2000 and the Insurance Company produced the evidence by summoning the clerk from the Licencing Authority Sudhir Kumar as RW-1 who gave evidence to the effect that the licence had not been renewed for the period from 29.05.1988 to 25.05.2000 and thereafter, the duplicate of the licence was issued on 26.05.2000. Evidently, the driver did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. 2. The Tribunal however, held that on its own examination, it found that the driving licence had been renewed after 26.05.2000 and that there had been subsequent renewals also. The Tribunal observation was clearly wrong and conflicts with what was brought out through documentary evidence. The liability of the Insurer could be only to satisfy the claimants and it will have a right of recovery against the owner/insured. 3. The awards of the Tribunal are modified to provide for such right of recovery against the owner/insured and the appeals are allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 22nd September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik