FAO No.221 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.221 of 1995 Date of decision: 16.9.2011 National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant(s) Versus Mukandi Lal & others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant(s). -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. The Insurance Company is in appeal seeking for recovery rights against the owner/driver on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The driver/owner of the offending vehicle produced copy of the driving licence, Ex.R1 which shows that the same was issued on 25.12.1986 and was valid upto 24.12.1989 and the same purports to have been renewed up to 23.12.1992 by the licensing authority Jagadhri on 23.12.1989. On behalf of licensing authority i.e. RTA Alwar, it has been proved that driving licence, Exhibit R1 was not issued by its office. The appellant before the Tribunal took the stand that the driver/owner of the offending vehicle sought adjournments from the court for leading evidence in reubuttal of the evidence to the RTA Alwar by proving the record of the licencing authority, Jagadhri to fortify his stand that the renewal of the driving licence was in fact made by that authority but he did not lead any such evidence. The learned Tribunal observed that there is no denying the FAO No.221 of 1995 2 fact that permission to lead such evidence was obtained by respondent No.3 but he failed to lead any evidence in this regard. The Tribunal further observed that there is no allegation from the appellant side that the endorsement regarding the renewal of the driving licence of respondent No.3 was fake and forged and in the circumstance, the same is treated to be as a valid driving licence despite the evidence of RTA, Alwar. This is rather a strange reasoning for an inter se dispute between the driver and the insurer. If the driving licence held by the driver was fake, the subsequent renewals would not render any authenticity to such a document. Nothing has been placed on record to prove that the respondent No.3 made any effort to verify from the licensing authority regarding the genuineness/veracity of the driving licence held by the driver. The liability of the Insurance company in the case of a fake licence or a renewal of a licence which was a fake one have been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases and the decision in Prem Kumari and others Vs. Prahlad Dev and others, 2008 (2), PLR (SC), it has been held that when originally the licence was a fake one, the subsequent renewal cannot cure its inherent fatality. It was further held that in case of third party risks, the insurer has to indemnify the amount to recover the same from the insured. In view of above, the Insurance Company shall have the recovery rights and is entitled to recover the same against the owner-cum- driver of the offending vehicle. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. 16.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mks JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No