F.A.O No. 790 of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O No. 790 of 1997 Date of decision: 30th June, 2010 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Suba and others .......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate,, for the appellant. K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The only point that arises for consideration before this Court in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is that the Insurance Company could not have been made liable for the compensation when it was established that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving license. The grievance is that the licensing clerk of the Transport Authority, UNA had been examined as RW-1 and he had given evidence with reference to record that Serial No. 344 under which the license was said to have been renewed, contained no entry of renewal for the relevant period i.e., from 2.04.1992 to 18.11.1993. 2. In the light of evidence adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company, the owner had not chosen to examine himself or the F.A.O No. 790 of 1997 2 driver to explain the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company. If the original license was fake or if the renewal was a fake, the liability of the Insurance Company cannot be fastened without a definite evidence that the owner/insured had taken all the precautions of employing the driver with a valid driving license. This point has been dealt with, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Insurance Company Limted Vs. Davinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 698. In view of the fact that no evidence has been tendered at all by the owner or the driver, the Tribunal ought to have provided for a right of recovery against the owner. 3. The award of the Tribunal is, therefore, modified to the extent of recovery against the insured for the amount awarded against the Insurance Company. The entitlement of the claimant to secure the amount awarded against the Insurance Company shall not in any way be altered. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent only. Therefore, shall be however, no directions as to costs. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 30th June, 2010 Shivani Kaushik