IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.116 of 1998 Date of decision:29.07.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Manpreet Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Inderjeet Shama, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant. None 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. In this case, the Tribunal specifically found in paragraph 10 that the licence as well as the renewal were fake, but still found that the Insurance Company liable by reference to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Skandia Insurance Company Versus Kokila Ben and others-1987 (2) SCC 645. This judgment was explained in the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Swaran Singh-(2004) 3 SCC 297 when it held that if the licence is fake or the renewal is fake, the insurer could not be made liable except under certain circumstances delineated in the judgment, such as when the accident is said to be the result of the negligence of the driver with no mechanical defect or act of god as FAO No.116 of 1998 - 2 - having caused the accident. The insurer cannot be left without a right of recovery against the insured in other cases. 2. The award of the Tribunal, under the circumstances, cannot be sustained and it is modified to the extent of providing the liability of the insurer only to satisfy the claim of the claimants and to obtain right of recovery against the insured. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 29.07.2010 sanjeev