F.A.O.NO. 49 OF 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 49 OF 2000 Date of decision:30th November, 2010 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office, SCO NO. 332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney. .......Appellant Versus Meena and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. R.C.Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. 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 only point urged in the appeal by the insurer is the right of recovery which was denied to the insurer from the owner and the driver on the ground that the renewal of licence had been found to be valid, although, the original licence was proved by the insurer to be not genuine. The law has now been settled through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance v. Davinder Singh(2007) 8 SCC 342, where it was held that even if the renewal is F.A.O.NO. 49 OF 2000 2 genuine, the original issue of licence is proved to be fake, it would be fake. 2. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Davinder Singh's case(supra), the Insurance Company will have a right of recovery after satisfying the award in favour of the claimants from the owner-insured. The driver although was a tort feasor shall be protected by vicarious liability and therefore, I would provide for right of recovery only against the insured. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 30th November, 2010 Shivani Kaushik