FAO No.1064 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1064 of 2003 Date of Decision. 22.09.2010 National Insurance Company Kaithal through its Divisional Manager Kaithal through its Asstt. Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office-II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Chameli Devi wife of Hawa Singh resident of Kheru Sheru Kaithal and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. N.K. Khosla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana. 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 challenging the liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. At the trial, the Licensing Clerk from Dehradun was examined as RW-2, who said that on 15.07.1980 the date when the driver claimed that his licence had actually been issued, no licence had been issued in the name of the driver Ram Kumar son of Ram Singh. The licence that had been issued on 15.07.1980 showed that it had been issued in the name of Ram Kumar son of Budh Ram and he verified that there was no licence standing in the name of Ram FAO No.1064 of 2003 -2- Kumar son of Ram Singh. This licence was found to be inadequate by the Tribunal by the only reason that in the cross-examination, he admitted that he will not be in a position to say whether the particular signature shown to him as having been signed by the Licensing Authority was actually the signature of such Licensing Authority or not. Obviously he could not have given any other evidence for no one could be as sure as the licensing authority himself. The evidence of a clerk must be tested only as a person, who is competent to give evidence by the acquaintance that he has with reference to the register. 2. By some strange reasoning, the Tribunal found that the licence was not stated by the clerk to be forged or fake and that had been renewal of licence from the licensing authority subsequently at Kaithal. In this case, if any officer from the Haryana Roadways had given evidence that they had acted bona fide on the licence produced by the driver, then it should have been possible to contend that notwithstanding the character of licence as fake, the owner was led to believe that it was genuine. If we must test the truth of evidence between the driver and the clerk then it should only be affirmed that the documents cannot lie to what a witness can. In the absence of evidence from the owner of the vehicle explaining his own belief, I would hold that the driving licence was not genuine and the insurer ought to have been provided with the right of recovery. 3. The award of the Tribunal, therefore, shall stand modified to make the insurer liable to satisfy the claim of the claimants and FAO No.1064 of 2003 -3- shall have a right of recovery against the State which is the owner of the vehicle. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 22, 2010 Pankaj*