IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5460 of 2005 Date of decision:31.08.2010 Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Rajpal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ravinder Mohan Suri, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The issue in appeal is only qua the 4th respondent for liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The licence produced by the owner bore licence No.50579/P alleged to have been issued by the Licensing Authority, Panipat. A witness from the licensing authority RW-2 had been examined along with the register, who stated that against the said licence number it had been shown to have been issued in the name of Shamsher Singh and not in the name of the driver-Dharamir. When the entire register was produced before the Court, the Tribunal rejected the evidentiary value of the register on the ground that the date of issue had not been mentioned in the register. I fail to understand the reasoning when there FAO No.5460 of 2005 - 2 - was specific evidence given that the register contained all licences issued between the year 1996 to 2001. It was a clear case where the licence produced was fake and the Insurance Company could not have been denied the right of recovery unless there was an evidence of the owner to say that he acted on bona fide faith on the genuineness of the licence. There is no such evidence placed before the the Tribunal. The Insurance Company shall become liable only to satisfy the claim of the claimants and it shall have a right of recovery against the 4th respondent. 2. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 31.08.2010 sanjeev