FAO No.2122 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2122 of 1996 Date of Decision. 16.09.2010 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Patiala through Sh. S.K. Joshi, Manager, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Mewa Ram son of Jethu Ram son of Chamela Ram and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pradeep Bedi, 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 challenges the award on the issue of liability by pointing out that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The insurer had attempted to prove its defence by summoning the original register and testify through RW-2, a clerk from the DTO Chamba. The document proved that it was not genuine but still finding that there had been a renewal of licence, the Tribunal held that since the RW-2 did not produce any record of the renewal, the insurer could not be stated to have discharged the burden of proof. This proposition conflicts with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Indian Insurance v Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 that a renewal of a fake driving licence is FAO No.2122 of 1996 -2- no licence at all and hence the insurer shall not be liable. 2. It will, therefore, be not taken established that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and the owner had committed a breach of the terms of policy. The liability of the insurer shall be only to satisfy the claim of the claimants and to recover the same against the insured. 3. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the appeal is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 16, 2010 Pankaj*