IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1356 of 1996 Date of decision:30.06.2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Suman Rani and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.1357 of 1996 New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Pushpa Rani and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate, 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. Both the cases are connected and are taken up together. 2. Both the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident and, therefore, the Insurance Company could not be made liable. The accident took place on 13.01.1995 and the driver had a driving FAO No.1356 of 1996 - 2 - licence which had expired on 17.03.1981. He had obtained a renewal of the licence. Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 provided for a right of renewal within 30 days after the expiry of the licence and the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 makes a similar provision in Section 15. This aspect of renewal of licence beyond the period of expiry and its effect on the liability of the Insurance Company was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Versus Vidhya Matharu-2009(4) PLR 746, which held that if at the time of the accident, the driver did not have a valid driving licence and he obtained the renewal subsequently, the Insurance Company would have no liability. Applying the said judgment, I hold that the liability of the Insurance Company would be only to pay the amount as awarded and recover the same from the insured. The appeal against the claimants had been dismissed and the case was directed to be taken only against the owner by the order of the Division Bench on 10.05.1996. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified to provide for a right of recovery of the amount from the insured only. Both the appeals are allowed to that extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.06.2010 sanjeev