F.A.O.NO. 1635 OF 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1635 OF 1996 Date of decision: 22nd July, 2010 United India Insurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Ved Kaur and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate, for the appellant. None 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. The Insurance Company has made liable only on the ground that although the licence was proved to be fake the renewal was valid. Therefore, the Insurance Company could not take up the plea that it was not liable. This point has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment United Indian Insurance v Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 that renewal if it is valid cannot validate fake licence. 2. The fake character of the licence will have to be established by summoning the original register and securing the attendance of a witness connected with the document. F.A.O.NO. 1635 OF 1996 2 3. In this case the alleged fake character is sought to be established by the fact that in a communication by counsel Shri H.N.P. Kaushal to the Divisional Manager, he had verified the driving licence that it has been true. The Tribunal has observed that no person from the Licencing Authority was examined before the Court. The finding is appropriate and the documents cannot be said to have been proved to be fake. Even a finding of the Tribunal that the renewal of licence validated original licence is not correct but I rest my decision on the ground that even the original issue of licence was not established by the Tribunal to be fake. The liability cast on the insurer was justified and there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 22nd July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik