F.A.O.NO. 2126 OF 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 2126 OF 2000 Date of decision: 21st July, 2010 United India Insurance Company Limited .......Appellant Versus Sant Kaur and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Vishal Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellant. None 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 appeal filed by the Insurance Company is on the point of liability in a case where the licence is fake but the renewal is genuine. The Court has found in evidence that the licence was fake but in view of the fact that the renewal was genuine, the Insurance Company is bound to pay and the insured will also be entitled to indemnity. 2. This aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme court in United India Insurance Company v Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342. Even genuine renewal cannot make a fake licence valid. The Insurance Company is therefore, not bound to indemnify the insured unless the insured F.A.O.NO. 2126 OF 2000 2 had given evidence that he was under the bonafide belief that the driver had a valid driving licence. No such evidence is available . The owner who is arrayed as 4th respondent in the appeal has been served but he does not appear. 3. 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 21st July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik