FAO No.378 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.378 of 2001 Date of Decision. 30.08.2010 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., having its Regional Office at SCO No.109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney ......Appellant Versus Balbir Singh son of Jethu Ram and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. None for the 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 cast on it on the ground that the insurance company had proved on record that the driver did not have a valid driving licence but still the liability has been cast on it. Before the Tribunal, Clerk in the office of the RTO, Karnal has been examined as RW-2, who brought the original records to give evidence to the effect that the particular licence number that the copy of the licence bore had not been issued by the office at Karnal. It was also stated that no licence had even been renewed by their office. While the proof that the licence was not genuine was clearly expressed, the owner had given evidence as RW-3 stating that he had employed Amir Singh as a FAO No.378 of 2001 -2- driver one year earlier to the date of the accident and at the time of his employment, he checked the licence and during his employment also, he had visited with him three or four times in the truck. There had been no police verification during the time of his employment. He has given evidence to the effect that he believed that the licence was correct and was not fake one. The insurance company can deny the insured a right of indemnity only if it is established that the insured was guilty of breach. There was no breach when the insured was under the bona fide belief that the licence was true. The liability cast on the insurer with the right of indemnity to the insured is under the circumstances justified and there is no warrant for interference in the award of the Tribunal. 2. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 30, 2010 Pankaj*