IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6942 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:02.05.2011 Harish Kumar ...Appellant versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate, for the appellant. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is against the right of recovery awarded to the insurer for violation of terms of policy in the owner allowing a driver to drive a vehicle without a driving licence. At the trial, it was established that the driving licence produced by the driver was fake and that it had not been issued by the transport authority. 3. The learned counsel seeks to contend that he was under the bonafide belief that the driving licence was genuine. The issue of bonafide belief is a question of fact that has to be established by letting in such evidence. It is a matter of inference where the driver has a fake licence but the owner believes such fake licence to be genuine. The FAO No.6942 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - learned counsel states that the counsel, who had appeared on behalf of the respondents, had no specific authority to represent them and he had misused the power of attorney which he had from the party for some other case and he had filed vakalatnama. He had filed a statement but he had also not informed the party appropriately for letting in evidence which was necessary. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant seems like a plea against the counsel than a statement in defence against the insurer that the Insurance Company did not have a valid right of recovery. The appellant, who may have an independent cause of action against the counsel that misused the authority or negligence on his part, cannot still succeed in an action where the Insurance Company had proved that under the terms of the contract, the driver was required to hold a valid driving licence and that the liability to indemnify the insured would arise only if such driver had a valid driving licence. The violation of terms of policy had been established at the trial and a provision for right of recovery, as provided under the award, under the circumstances, would, therefore, seem to be justified. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 02.05.2011 sanjeev