F.A.O.NO. 928 OF 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 928 OF 1993 Date of decision: 20th July, 2010 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Samey Singh and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Tarundeep Kumar, Advocate, with Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate, 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. The Insurance Co is in appeal against the judgment of the MACT contending that in spite of the fact that the driver who drove the vehicle was proved to have had a fake driving licence, the liability is wrongly cast on it. 2. The liability of the Insurance Co in a 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 decisions in National Insurance Co v Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 and United Indian Insurance v Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 are instructive. In the latter judgment, it has been held that a renewal of a fake driving F.A.O.NO. 928 OF 1993 2 licence is no licence at all and hence the insurer shall not be liable. 3. It was even held earlier by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while referring to the effect of a renewal of forged licence, in New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla,(2001) 4 SCC 342: 13. The observation of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sucha Singh that renewal of a document which purports to be a driving licence, will robe even a forged document with validity on account of Section 15 of the Act, propounds a very dangerous proposition. If that proposition is allowed to stand as a legal principle, it may, no doubt, thrill counterfeiters the world over as they would be encouraged to manufacture fake documents in a legion. What was originally a forgery would remain null and void forever and it would not acquire legal validity at any time by whatever process of sanctification subsequently done on it. Forgery is antithesis to legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery. 4. In this case, the Tribunal itself has found that the person who was said to have driven the vehicle did not have a licence but it found that another person Umesh Chand was the driver. Umesh Chand was not even stated by the claimants as driver of the vehicle, though such an attempt was sought to be made at the trial. Evidently the insured was trying to produce in evidence that driver Narinder was not the driver but gave out F.A.O.NO. 928 OF 1993 3 out the name of the person who perhaps possessed the driving licence. 5. Under the circumstances, the Insurance Company shall not be liable to indemnify the insured. The liability is to satisfy the claim under the award with a right of recovery against the insured. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the appeal allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 20th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik