FAO No.4776 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4776 of 2010 Date of decision: 12.12.2011 National Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Suman and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Vivek Singal, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent Nos. 1,2,5 and 6. Mr.Parmod Parmar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 **** Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 29.4.2010, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani ( to be referred as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition of the claimants was accepted and the appellant alongwith the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, the driver and the owner, of the offending Dumper Truck, bearing registration No.HR 63-B- 0526, were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the learned Tribunal erred in law by ignoring the fact that the original driving licence held by the driver was fake, and subsequent renewals did not make the same a valid driving licence. He further contends that the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle had colluded with the claimant with FAO No.4776 of 2010 2 ulterior motive for getting compensation from the Insurance Company. The driver of the offending truck was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4, driver and owner respectively contends that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence. The licence had already been renewed twice by the competent authority. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs. Kamla and ors. 2001(3) RCR (Civil), 716, has held as under:- “12. As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. Section15 of the Act only empowers and Licensing Authority to “renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry”. No Licensing Authority has the power to renew a fake licence and, therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Any counterfeit document showing that it contains a purported order of a statutory authority would ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact that other persons including some statutory authorities FAO No.4776 of 2010 3 would have acted on the document unwittingly on the assumption that it is genuine.” The said authority has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut 2007(2) RCR (Civil), 345 and observed that the matter shall be considered afresh, where originally the license was a fake one, its subsequent renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal in para no.18 has observed as under:- “18. Indeed, subsequent renewal of the licence by a competent authority cannot be validate a licence, the original of which is fake. However, in the instant case, the facts are different. The original licence No.17067/BSD in the name of the respondent Bhupinder may have been a fake licence, as proved by RW2 Clerk of the office of Licencing Authority, Bhahadurgarh, but the fact is that it was twice renewed by DTO, Jhajjar as per statement of RW1.” In the instant case, the original licence No.17067/BSD was issued in the name of one Vishnu son of Durga, resident of Shakti Nagar, Bahadurgarh on 9.2.2001 and it was valid for driving scooter, car, motorcycle and jeep only. As a sequel of above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamla and ors'. case (supra) as well as in Laxmi Narain Dhut's case (supra), the present appeal is allowed to the FAO No.4776 of 2010 4 extent that the Insurance company will pay the compensation amount to the claimants, in the first instance and thereafter, it shall recover the same from respondent Nos. 3 and 4, driver and owner of the offending Dumper Truck bearing registration No.HR 63-B- 0526. The impugned Award dated 29.4.2010 is modified to the extend indicated above. 12.12.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE