IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2229 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision:22.02.2011 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Jitender and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Tejinderpal Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The only point urged in appeal by the Insurance Company is that even when there was a finding that the original driving licence had not been issued by the Licensing Authority, Una, the fact that there had a renewal from another Licensing Authority at Tohana, which was proved to be genuine, was sufficient to find that the driving licence was genuine and that the Insurance Company would become liable. The Tribunal relied on a judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited Verus Sucha Singh and others-1994(1) PLR 147 to hold that point of view. The above judgment was found not to be a good law in a subsequent judgment in United India Insurance Versus Divinder Singh FAO No.2229 of 1996 (O&M) - 2 - (2007) 8 SCC 342 . A renewal of fake licence will be treated only as not genuine. The Insurance Company which was made liable to satisfy the claim for the injuries suffered in the accident shall have a right of recovery against the owner/insured. 2. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22.02.2011 sanjeev