FAO No.3842 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3842 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision.01.06.2011 United India Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Moga, (Manager Legal), United India Insurance Company Limited, 136, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana) ......Appellant Versus Shinderpal Singh (minor) son of Jagmohan Singh and others .....Respondents 2. FAO No.3843 of 2011 United India Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Moga, (Manager Legal), United India Insurance Company Limited, 136, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana) ......Appellant Versus Hardip Kaur widow of Jagmohan Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Ms. Vandanaa Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 appeal is filed by the insurance company on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The issue of driving licence must be tested in the context of any violation of terms of policy from the insured. In this case, the insured offered the evidence to show that before employing the driver, he directed him to drive the vehicle and after being satisfied, he employed him. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that the owner looked at the driving licence and he found FAO No.3842 of 2011 (O&M) -2- that there was endorsement for driving heavy transport vehicle. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company is that he did not verify with the DTO office about particulars found in the driving licence. It is not necessary that the insured must go after the DTO to verify whether the DTO had really issued it or not. If the owner had satisfied to himself that the driver is efficient in driving and he saw the driving licence, they are sufficient proof to establish that there had been no violation of terms of policy. The liability cast on the insurer in such a situation and providing for indemnity to the insured are perfectly justified and I find no reason to interfere with the same. 2. The awards are confirmed and both the appeals are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE June 01, 2011 Pankaj*