IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.73 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision:24.09.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Toshi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. S.P.Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 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 is in appeal challenging liability on the ground that the driving licence was fake. The Insurance Company examined the Clerk from the Licensing Authority with reference to licence No.208 that showed that the licence had been issued in the name of some other person. The driver and the insured were represented through counsel and there had been no suggestion made that the licence, which the driver of the offending vehicle had, was licence No.2080. From the bare look of the copy of the licence which is produced in Court, it could be noticed that it was only 208 but the Tribunal rejected the evidence of the Clerk by the only reason that no evidence is given with FAO No.73 of 2001 (O&M) - 2 - reference to the licence No.2080. It was no body's case at the trial that the driver had a driving licence No.2080. Further apart from the facts that the name of the driver was the same in 208, the father's name was different and even the driving licence had been issued only to drive a motorcycle and tractor. The driver was driving a passenger bus. It is a distinct category and even if the licence were to be genuine, he was not duly licensed to drive a transport vehicle which was a bus. 2. The award of the Tribunal shall subsist against the insurer only to satisfy the claimants but it will have a right of recovery against the owner/insured of the vehicle. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 24 .09.2010 sanjeev