FAO No.1418 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1418 of 2003 Date of Decision. 30.08.2010 The United India Insurance Company Limited, having its regional Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Asstt. Manager ......Appellant Versus Smt. Bimla wd/o Pat Ram and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sarvjit Singh Khurana, Advocate for respondent No.6. None for the other respondents. 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. The insurance company is on appeal challenging the liability on the ground that it could not have been denied the right of recovery in a case where it was established that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. A clerk from the office at Mathura had given evidence about the fact that the licence was fake and no licence had been issued in the name of the driver in the manner referred to in the copy of the licence. 2. The insured died before the trial began and the case was proceeded by impleading the legal representatives. At the trial, the elder brother of the deceased gave evidence to the effect that the FAO No.1418 of 2003 -2- vehicle was purchased in the name of the insured by him and that he had employed the driver himself, convinced that he was a good driver. He has deposed that the driver had been driving the jeep for several years before he was employed as driver of the offending vehicle. He had also stated that he checked the driving licence and verified the fact from the office of the Licensing Authority, Rewari from where the licence had been renewed. If the licence had been renewed, he had a reason to believe that the renewing office would have checked up with the original Licensing Authority that it had been issued by that office. For what the original Licensing Authority failed to do effectively or what the Renewing Authority did without proper verification, the owner or his representative could not be denied the right of indemnity. The evidence is sufficient to infer that the insured could not be guilty of any willful breach. 3. The liability of the insurer shall not merely be to satisfy the claim but shall also be to indemnify the insured. The award is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 30, 2010 Pankaj*