IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.102 of 1997 Date of decision:25.08.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Kaushalya and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- Present: Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate, for Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advocate, 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. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the licence of the driver was proved to be false by securing a report from the licensing authority who had vouched to the fact that no licence had been issued in the name of the driver Suresh Kumar and that the particular licence number had not been issued from the office of the licensing authority. 2. On express report brought before the Court which is exhibited as R-1, the Tribunal reasoned that the subsequent renewals had been genuine and, therefore, even the licence was fake which would not make a difference. This observation was made relying on a decision in National Insurance Company Limited Verus Sucha Singh and others- FAO No.102 of 1997 - 2 - 1994(1) PLR 140 was expressly overruled in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Versus Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 and also specifically considered in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Versus Divinder Singh-(2007) 8 SCC 342. 3. The award of the Tribunal, under the circumstances, is modified to make the insurer liable only to satisfy the claim of the claimants and recover the same against the insured. 4. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.08.2010 sanjeev