FAO No. 1444 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1444 of 2011 Date of decision May 23, 2011 Khushwinder Kaur ....... Appellant Versus Kamlesh Rani and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Rajinder Sharma , Advocate for the appellant. **** 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 appeal by the owner is on the ground that the driving license which was found to be fake made possible an award against the Insurance company with the right of recovery from the owner and driver. The contention of the learned counsel is that the driving license contained transport vehicle endorsement but in the evidence it was sought to be proved that the particular officer who was authorized to issue the license had not indeed signed and the endorsement was not genuine. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that there was no reason for the owner to suspect that the license was not genuine. In a case where the focus of the Tribunal had been on the validity of a driving license and the Insurance Company also tendered appropriate FAO No. 1444 of 2011 2 proof for the contentions raised in the statement that the license was not genuine, it was imperative of the owner and the driver to have given evidence to either deny or explain how the HTV endorsement had arisen or how the owner held any bonafide belief that the driver had a valid driving license. It cannot be a matter of presumption for a Tribunal to obtain any favour to insured even when he tendered no evidence after the Insurance Company established that the license was not genuine. 3. The liability cast on the owner and driver through a right of recovery provided for the insurer cannot therefore be faulted. The award is confirmed and the appeal by the owner and driver is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 23 , 2011 archana