FAO No.4694 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4694 of 2005 Date of Decision.24.09.2010 National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office I, SCO No.332- 334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its duly authorized A.M. ......Appellant Versus Shakuntla Devi widow of Varinder Pal and others ......Respondents 2. FAO No.5273 of 2005 National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office I, SCO No.332- 334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its duly authorized A.M. ......Appellant Versus Dinesh Kumar s/o Sh. Shiv Narain alias Jai Narain and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The insurance company challenges the liability on the ground that the driving licence in the case, which is the subject matter of appeal in FAO No.4694 of 2005, was not valid and effective on the date of the accident. It was sought to be proved at FAO No.4694 of 2005 -2- the trial that the accident had taken place on 11.08.2001 and the driver had applied for licence only on 15.08.2001. The Tribunal rejected the plea on the ground that in yet another case at the instance of another party where the insured and the insurer were co- respondents, the Court had already found that the licence was genuine and therefore, that finding would govern the issue. Yet another case, which the Tribunal referred to was the case filed by one Dinesh Kumar and others and that judgment has also been challenged before this Court in FAO No.5273 of 2005 and it is being taken up simultaneously for orders. 2. In the other case where the Tribunal found that the driver had a valid driving licence, it was on a reasoning that since the driver had ultimately obtained a driving licence though subsequent to the accident had only proved that the driver knew driving. If this logic must be applied, any person who knows driving could drive a vehicle even without a driving licence. Authorities are endowed with specific powers to provide for driving licence and it cannot be a matter of mere assumption by a person that he is competent to drive if he has not subjected himself to a test and secured a driving licence. 3. It is a simple case of the fact that the driver did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident and that would conclude the issue in favour of the insurer. The awards of the respective Tribunal in both the cases are set aside in so far as they provide to the insured the right of indemnity. The liability of the insurer shall be only to satisfy the claim of the claimants and recover the same against the insured. FAO No.4694 of 2005 -3- 4. The awards are modified and the appeals are allowed in the manner referred to above. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE September 24, 2010 Pankaj*