F.A.O.NOs. 1999 to 2004 OF 2004, F.A.O.NOs. 5260 to 5262 OF 2004 & -1- Civil Revision Nos. 2568 to 2571 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. F.A.O.NO. 1999 OF 2004 Date of decision:11th October, 2010 National Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Chander Pati and others ........Respondents 2. F.A.O.No. 2000 of 2004 National Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Phulli and others ........Respondents 3. F.A.O.No. 2001 of 2004 National Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Kitab and others ........Respondents 4. F.A.O.No. 2002 of 2004 National Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Mandeep and others ........Respondents 5. F.A.O.No. 2003 of 2004 National Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. .......Appellant F.A.O.NOs. 1999 to 2004 OF 2004, F.A.O.NOs. 5260 to 5262 OF 2004 & -2- Civil Revision Nos. 2568 to 2571 of 2004 Versus Ramphal and others ........Respondents 6. F.A.O.No. 2004 of 2004 National Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Chhoto and others ........Respondents 7. F.A.O.No. 5260 of 2004 Chander Pati and another .......Appellants Versus Ravinder Pal and others ........Respondents 8. F.A.O.No. 5261 of 2004 Smt. Phulli widow of Bhajna alias Madana .......Appellant Versus Ravinder Pal and others ........Respondents 9. F.A.O.No. 5262 of 2004 Smt.Chhoto wife of Badan Singh and another .......Appellants Versus Ravinder Pal and others ........Respondents 10. Civil Revision No. 2568 of 2004 National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager. .......Appellant Versus Om Parkash and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NOs. 1999 to 2004 OF 2004, F.A.O.NOs. 5260 to 5262 OF 2004 & -3- Civil Revision Nos. 2568 to 2571 of 2004 11. Civil Revision No. 2569 of 2004 National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager. .......Appellant Versus Baljit Singh and others ........Respondents 12. Civil Revision No. 2570 of 2004 National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager. .......Appellant Versus Ajmer Singh and others ........Respondents 13. Civil Revision No. 2571 of 2004 National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager. .......Appellant Versus Ram Niwas and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the Insurance Company. None for the claimants. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. All these appeals and the revision petitions are connected since they involve the claims relating to the same accident. The F.A.O.NOs. 1999 to 2004 OF 2004, F.A.O.NOs. 5260 to 5262 OF 2004 & -4- Civil Revision Nos. 2568 to 2571 of 2004 Tribunal found that the driving licence was not genuine and for violation of terms of policy, it had made the insurer liable and preferred for a right of recovery. 2. The contention of the Insurance Company at the time when the appeals and the revision petitions were filed was that it ought not have been made liable in the first place since there was no driving licence for the driver. It has come through a different dispensation subsequently by judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co v Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 where the principle of pay and recovery has been firmly established by reference to its earlier rulings. The direction by the Tribunal was therefore, perfectly justified. 2. The Insurance Company liability was therefore, bound to satisfy the claimants but it would have a right of recovery against the insured/owner. 3. All the appeals and the civil revisions are dismissed, affirming the award already passed in the manner referred to above. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 11th October, 2010 Shivani Kaushik