FAO NO. 2602 OF 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 2602 OF 1996 DECIDED ON 29.6.2010. New India Assurance Co. -----Appellant Vs. Harbhajan Singh and others -------Respondents. AND FAO NO. 2640 OF 1996 DECIDED ON 29.6.2010. New India Assurance Co. -----Appellant Vs. Balbir Singh and others -------Respondents. CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present:- Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shailender Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the respondent no.3. *** K. Kannan, J (Oral) FAO NO. 2602 OF 1996 The Insurance Company is in appeal denying the liability on the ground that original licence was fake and claims that it had proved the same by examining the Licensing Authority, Dehradun, to give evidence to the effect that particular licence number in the document produced before the Court had been issued in favour of one Abdul Khyum FAO NO. 2602 OF 1996 2 and had never been issued in favour of Avtar Singh, who, it was claimed was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Sucha Singh and others 1994(1) The Punjab Law Reporter 140 that even if the original licence was fake, if there had been a subsequent renewal that could validate the licence. This aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently and it has been held in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Davinder Singh 2007(8) SCC page 698 that renewal of original fake licence cannot validate the licence and the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured can arise only in case of a valid licence. Renewal of a fake licence was stated as creating a situation of no liability with the insurer. In this Case, even when a positive evidence has been given, the owner of the vehicle had only filed the written statement denying that the vehicle was involved in the accident and did not let in any evidence about his own verification whether the driver possessed a driving licence or not. This aspect of burden of proof and the manner of discharge of the same that a concomitant liability of the owner as regards his inquiry has been spelt out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Swaran Singh and others 2004(3) SCC 297 . In view of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the decision relied upon by the Tribunal cannot support the ultimate conclusion that it has arrived. However, the Insurance Company shall still be liable to pay the claimants but it will have a right of recovery against the insured. FAO NO. 2640 OF 1996 addresses similar facts except for a variation that in this case, the owner has not chosen to file a FAO NO. 2602 OF 1996 3 written statement and was subsequently proceeded exparte. He has also not given any evidence. The same result ought to follow and the liability of the Insurance Company will arise to pay the claimants with the right of recovery against the insured/owner. The award of the Tribunal is modified only to the extent of providing for a right of recovery for the Insurance Company against the insured/owner of the vehicle. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to the costs. 29.06.2010 ( K.KANNAN ) mamta JUDGE