FAO No.4756 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4756 of 2010 Date of Decision. 27.01.2011 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited ......Appellant Versus Fateh aged 28 years son of Shri Harpat Singh and others ...Respondents Present: Ms. Vandna Malhotra, 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 appeal by the insurance company is on the issue of liability as well as the involvement of the vehicle. As regards the involvement of the vehicle, the attempt of the insurer was to show that the accident had taken place on 19.10.2007 but the FIR had been lodged on 23.10.2007, that was, four days after the accident. The driver of the vehicle itself was not examined and the Tribunal, therefore, placed reliance on the evidence of a person, who claimed to be an eye-witness to the accident. In the absence of positive proof from the driver about the non-involvement of the vehicle, I will hold the finding of the Tribunal regarding the involvement of the vehicle to be fully established. 2. On the issue of liability, it was pressed by the insurer that the FAO No.4756 of 2010 -2- driver did not have a valid driving licence. It produced RW-1, Rakesh Kumar as Clerk from the licensing authority, Gurgaon to show that the driver had merely a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle but at the relevant time he was driving a transport vehicle. The Tribunal held that the owner had given evidence to the effect that he had employed him only 20 days before the accident and by looking at the driving licence he was under the impression that the driver had a valid licence. If it is a case of endorsement for a transport vehicle also and the owner was under the bona fide belief that the endorsement relating to transport vehicle was genuine and later it was established at the trial that the endorsement was forged or fabricated, then it would become possible for an owner to contend that he had not been guilty of violation of terms of policy. The question of bona fide belief is essential in a case, but where in the first place there was not even an endorsement for driving a transport vehicle, the owner could not have had any bona fide belief that the driver had valid driving licence. Evidently it was a case of violation of terms of policy and the insurance company by such a circumstance would be entitled also to a right of recovery after satisfaction of the award. 3. The appeal is allowed to provide for such remedy and the insurance company will have a right of recovery against the owner- insured after the satisfaction of the award. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 27, 2011 Pankaj*