FAO No.175 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.175 of 1998 Date of Decision. 27.09.2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through Sh. R.C. Bansal, Asstt. Manager its duly constituted Attorney Regional Office, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Santosh Kumari alias Guddo, wife of Ram Phool son of Jhandu Ram and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent Nos.1 to 7. Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for respondent No.8. 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 the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The case was one of collision where the deceased was travelling in a jeep that met with an accident when it collided with the insured's truck. The vehicle found the truck driver to be at fault and made the insurer and the insured jointly liable. 2. The matter survives for consideration only for finding whether the driver had a valid driving licence. It was an admitted FAO No.175 of 1998 -2- case that the driver's licence had expired on 15.10.1992 and he had renewed the licence only subsequently on 29.08.1996. The accident had taken place on 5.7.1994. Evidently the driver did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. The Tribunal still reasoned that the driver was not disqualified from holding a driving licence by the fact that her renewal had been done and hence held that the insurer shall be liable. This aspect of the case has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jarnail Singh (2007) 15 SCC 28 and New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Suresh Chander Aggarwal (2009) 15 SCC 761 that held that if the licence is not renewed within 30 days from the date of expiry, as per Section 30, he has subsequent renewal after accident will not render the insurer liable. The liability shall be only to satisfy the claimants and the insurer shall have a right of recovery against the insured/owner of the vehicle. 3. The award of the Tribunal is, therefore, modified providing for a right of recovery against the owner/insured. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 27, 2010 Pankaj*