FAO No.906 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.906 of 2004 Date of Decision. 13.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Assistant Admn. Officer ......Appellant Versus Mahabir son of Sugan Chand aged 45 years and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, 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 is on appeal against an award that provides to the insurer a right of recovery against the insured. It was a case where the vehicle had been insured as a private vehicle, which was used as taxi. This would only mean that for a vehicle that had an insurance for a particular purpose and which was being used for an unauthorized purpose, there was a violation of terms of the policy. A case where an insurer would otherwise be liable for the violation, which is contemplated under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an enforcement of claim by the third party shall always be available against the insurer and the insurer cannot plead successfully a case of total exclusion of liability. The same issue has FAO No.906 of 2004 -2- been considered by this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Harbans Kaur and others in FAO No.3053 of 2010. The right granted by the Tribunal, under the circumstances, to the insurer is the only appropriate remedy which the Tribunal could have granted and there is no scope for modifying the award. 2. It is also contended that the driving licence was fake. I accept the contention what has been established but even then the right of recovery would be the only remedy possible in the manner laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 279. 3. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 13, 2010 Pankaj*