IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No: 373 of 2005. Judgment reserved on 12.5.2011. Date of decision : 16.5.2011 Oriental Insurance Company …Appellant. Versus Smt. Parkasho Devi & Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. J.L.Kashyap, Advocate. For respondents No.1 to 7: Mr. Himmat Negi, Advocate vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.8: Mr. Vijay Bhatia, Advocate. For respondent No.11 & 12. Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II) Una, (MACT) whereby the Insurance Company has been held liable to satisfy the award. 2. The only question raised in this appeal is, whether the driver did not have a valid driving licence and, therefore, the insurance company could not be made liable to pay the awarded amount. 3. As far as the question of the validity of the driving licence is concerned, there can be no manner of doubt that the driving licence issued in favour of the driver was a fake licence. The driver while appearing in the witness box 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 admitted in cross-examination that he had never gone to the motor Licensing Authority at Hamirpur, nor he had given any test. According to him, he had only paid money to an agent who had obtained the driving licence on his behalf. It is thus obvious that the driving licence issued in favour of the respondent was fake and this fact is proved from the evidence of the Licensing Clerk also who has denied that any licence was issued in favour of the driver. 4. The learned Tribunal held the insurance company liable to pay the amount only on the ground that the insurance company had failed to show that the owner of the vehicle had breached the policy. It is not disputed that the licence in question was originally shown to have been issued from Hamirpur and renewed from time to time at Una. The driver in his statement stated that he had shown the relevant documents to the owner at the time when he was given the job. 5. The main argument raised on behalf of the insurance company is that the owner did not step into the witness box and did not state that he had verified the licence of the driver, therefore, there is breach on the part of the owner and the insurance company cannot be held liable. It is no doubt that the owner has not stepped into the witness box. However, when we read the statement of the driver, it is apparent that he in his statement had stated that he had shown all relevant documents to the owner, this would obviously include the driving licence. The most important factor is that on this aspect of the matter the insurance company did not cross-examine the driver at all. No question 3 was put to him, as to what was the document shown by him to the owner at the time when he was engaged in service. 6. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the owner had breached the policy. How can the owner be aware that a licence is fake or genuine when even the renewing Authority at Una could not discover this fact. An owner at the time of engaging a driver is only expected to see the licence. It is apparent from the statement of the driver that this was done by the owner. Therefore, the insurance company cannot escape its liability. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No orders as to costs. 16th May, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) (Krn Guleria) Judge.