F.A.O.NO. 1987 OF 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1987 OF 2000 Date of decision: 8th July, 2010 New India Assurance Compay Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Surjit Singh and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. V.Ramaswarup, Advocate, for the appellant. 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 Co. is in appeal against the judgment of the MACT contending that in spite of the fact that the driver who drove the vehicle was proved to have had a fake driving licence, the liability is wrongly cast on it. 2. The liability of the Insurance Co in a case of a fake licence or a renewal of a licence which was a fake one have been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases and the decisions in National Insurance Co v Swaran Singh F.A.O.NO. 1987 OF 2000 2 (2004) 3 SCC 297 and United Indian Insurance v Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 are instructive. In the latter judgment, it has been held that a renewal of a fake driving licence is no licence at all and hence the insurer shall not be liable. 3. The Insurer had produced evidence to the effect that the original issue of license was fake and had secured an evidence of LDA of the office of District Transport Officer, Kamrup (Gowahati) West Zone which shows that the driving licence was not issued by his office. The seals applied on the driving licence are dummy and the driving licence is fake as the same has not been issued from his office. The Tribunal reasoned that since the renewal of licence was true the fact that the original was a fake made no difference. This conflicts with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divinder Singh's case(supra) 4. Even if the Insurance Company is not liable, the duty to satisfy the award for the claimants cannot be doubted. In such a situation, the liability to satisfy the award will be accompanied with a right of recovery from the owner/insured. This cannot be doubted in anyway, as specifically provided by the decision of the Supreme Court while dealing with the effect of proviso to Section 149(4) and Section 149(5) of the M.V.Act in New India Assurance Co. Shimla v. Kamla (2001) 4 SCC 342. 5. Under the circumstances, the Insurance Company shall not be liable to indemnify the insured. The liability is to satisfy the claim under the award with the right of recovery against the F.A.O.NO. 1987 OF 2000 3 insured. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent only. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 8th July,2010 Shivani Kaushik