FAO No.3646 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3646 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 23.05.2011 United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, 136, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through Dr. S.K. Takyar Manager ......Appellant Versus Simranjit Kaur widow of Dr. Balwinder Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Deepa Jain, Advocate, for Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing. 2. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the driver of the vehicle which was involved in the accident had valid driving licence or not. The Tribunal found that he was duly licensed but still passed an award against the insurance company. I will not find any mistake in the order except that while passing the award against the insurance company, it ought to have provided for a right of recovery for violation of terms of policy in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 and New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. FAO No.3646 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Kamla,(2001) 4 SCC 342 . The insurance company will have such a remedy against the insured and the driver after satisfying the award. 3. The award is also defective in the sense that it provides for satisfaction of the decree within a particular period failing which the interest is directed to be paid. I will modify the same to provide for recovery of money for the claimant against the insurance company with interest @6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The learned counsel for the insurance company states that there is no cross appeal or any objection by the claimant so far. I would invoke the powers under Order 41 Rule 33 and hold that the claimant is entitled to such a relief although not specifically sought for through any cross objection. 4. The award is modified and the appeal is disposed of with liberty as aforesaid. The amount, which is deposited before this Court at the time of preferring the appeal is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal for part satisfaction of the award. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 23, 2011 Pankaj*