F.A.O.NO. 2094 OF 1997, 1 F.A.O.NO. 2095 OF 1997 F.A.O.NO. 2096 OF 1997 and F.A.O.NO. 2097 OF 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 2094 OF 1997 Date of decision: 20th July, 2010 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Geeta Devi and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 2095 OF 1997 and Cross Objection No. 50-CII of 1998 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Usha Rani and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 2096 OF 1997 Cross Objection No. 49-CII of 1998 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Usha Rani and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 2097 OF 1997 Cross Objection No.1-CII of 1998 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Usha Rani and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN F.A.O.NO. 2094 OF 1997, 2 F.A.O.NO. 2095 OF 1997 F.A.O.NO. 2096 OF 1997 and F.A.O.NO. 2097 OF 1997 Present: Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate and Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. All these appeals arise out of the same accident and disposed of by the common orders. 2. The Insurance Co is in appeal against the judgments of the MACT contending that in spite of the fact that the driver who drove the vehicle was proved to have had a fake driving licence, the liability was wrongly cast on it. 3. The liability of the Insurance Co in a case of a fake licence or a renewal of a licence which was a fake one have been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases and the decisions in National Insurance Co v Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 and United Indian Insurance v Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 are instructive. In the latter judgment, it has been held that a renewal of a fake driving licence is no licence at all and hence the insurer shall not be liable. 4. It was even held earlier by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while referring to the effect of a renewal of forged licence, F.A.O.NO. 2094 OF 1997, 3 F.A.O.NO. 2095 OF 1997 F.A.O.NO. 2096 OF 1997 and F.A.O.NO. 2097 OF 1997 in New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla,(2001) 4 SCC 342: 13. The observation of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sucha Singh that renewal of a document which purports to be a driving licence, will robe even a forged document with validity on account of Section 15 of the Act, propounds a very dangerous proposition. If that proposition is allowed to stand as a legal principle, it may, no doubt, thrill counterfeiters the world over as they would be encouraged to manufacture fake documents in a legion. What was originally a forgery would remain null and void forever and it would not acquire legal validity at any time by whatever process of sanctification subsequently done on it. Forgery is antithesis to legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery. 5. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra) has an immediate relevance for us in this case for the effect of proof of fake licence in the context of the need for discharging the burden of proof on the Insurance company that the insured had committed a breach of terms of the policy. The fact that the driver had a fake licence will absolve the insurer of the liability of the insurer only, if it is established that the accident was on account of reasons where the possession of valid driving licence will have F.A.O.NO. 2094 OF 1997, 4 F.A.O.NO. 2095 OF 1997 F.A.O.NO. 2096 OF 1997 and F.A.O.NO. 2097 OF 1997 relevance for consideration of the aspect of negligence that has to be proved. If the accident was on account of say, mechanical defect in the vehicle, the issue of the validity of licence will have no relevance. 6. The Tribunal has considered the aspect that the petitioner had not adduced sufficient proof of the fact that the driving licence is a fake one. Mere production of a report from the licensing authority or through an investigator of the insurer that the register maintained by the licensing authority does not contain any reference to issue of a licence to the driver, shall not be sufficient in the absence of production of the original register before the Court and proof of the recitals of such register through a witness, who is acquainted with the register. 7. There are cross objections in two appeals. First Cross Objection No. 49-CII of 1998 in F.A.O.NO. 2096 OF 1997 where Tribunal had awarded Rs. 60,000/- for the death of a minor daughter. With reference to directions contained in the award that interest will be taxed on the insurer only from the date of the order, if amounts have not deposited within two months time, the direction for payment of interest where awards are upheld is matter of right provided under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no reason to disallow the claim of interest for a period prior to the award. While the court definitely has discretion in the matter of awarding of interest, it should state specific reasons if it was denying interest for a period prior F.A.O.NO. 2094 OF 1997, 5 F.A.O.NO. 2095 OF 1997 F.A.O.NO. 2096 OF 1997 and F.A.O.NO. 2097 OF 1997 to the award. No specific reason has been given in the award. The learned counsel also contends as regards the Cross objection No. 50-CII of 1998 in FAO NO. 2095 of 1997 where deceased was aged 38 years, the Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 15 instead of adopting a multiplier of 17. It was a claim under Schedule II where his income was less than Rs. 40,000/- then the formula as provided under the Act could be applied. Otherwise, the multiplier is only applied in other types of cases. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/- which in my view is appropriate for status and extent of the dependence made by the claimants. 6. All the appeals are dismissed and the cross objections are modified to the extent provided for the interest 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of the award. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 20th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik