F.A.O.NO. 200 of 1999 and 1 F.A.O.NO. 201 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 200 OF 1999 Date of decision:27th July, 2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Bhajanpreet Kaur and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 201 of 1999 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Manjit Singh and others .......Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 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. Both the appeals arise out of the same cause of action and disposed of by common orders. 2. The Tribunal has found that the driver did not have a valid driving licence on the basis of the evidence adduced by the insurer through examination of witness from the Licensing F.A.O.NO. 200 of 1999 and 2 F.A.O.NO. 201 of 1999 Authority Bilaspur (H.P.). The Tribunal however, did not provide for right of recovery against the insured on the ground that the renewal of license was not found to be fake although the original issue was fake. 3. This aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme court in United India Insurance Company v Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 . Therefore, it will not be taken as valid licence at all. The award of the Tribunal under circumstances is modified to provide for a liability of the insurer for the claimants with right of recovery against the insured. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 27th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik