FAO No.2059 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2059 of 2000 Date of Decision. 21.07.2010 New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its constituted attorney Sh. B.L. Jagwan .........Appellant Versus Angrej Kaur wd/o Babu Singh s/o Puran Singh Ramdasia and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate and Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. 2. FAO No.1469 of 2001 Maghar Singh son of Jang Singh r/o Bhawanigarh owner of Truck No.PUP-1792 .........Appellant Versus Angrej Kaur wd/o Babu Singh s/o Puran Singh Ramdasia and others .......Respondents Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.7-insurnace company. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. In both the appeals, although the Tribunal found the licence of the driver to be fake, it determined the amount of Compensation as Rs.1,90,000/-. It directed the owner to shoulder a FAO No.2059 of 2000 -2- liability for Rs.1,40,000/-. A amount of Rs.25,000/- was to be paid by the insurer and Rs.25,000/- were to be paid by the driver. 2. To say the least, it is rather an unusual method of settling liability. As far as insurer's liability is concerned, the liability could be only to indemnify the insured in cases where the policy conditions are satisified. A Court cannot arbitrarily vivisect an award to apportion liability as to what it thinks as just. The justice component must conform to law. If the licence was fake, the insured shall not have the benefit of indemnity. If the driver did not have a valid driving lcience, it may give rise to any independent action under the penal provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act itself but it cannot fasten liability on him for a claim by the claimants. The award against the driver to the tune of Rs.25,000/- is, therefore, set aside. As regads the liability of the insurance company, the same shall be for the entire amount to satisfy the claim of the claimants with right of recovery from the insured. If the claimants have already recovered the money from the insured to the extent indicated already, it shall not become necessary for the insurer to pay the said money to either the claimants or to the insured. 3. The appeal by the insured in FAO No.1469 of 2001 is against the liability cast on him for Rs.1,40,000/-. In the manner that I have held that the insured shall not have the benefit of indemnity, the insured shall become liable for the entire amount as determined by the Tribunal. 4. The apeal by the insured is, therefore, dismissed. The appeal by the insurer stands allowed to the extent of providing for a FAO No.2059 of 2000 -3- right of recovery to the extent to which it indemnifies itself by making the payment to the claimants. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE July 21, 2010 Pankaj*