IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1698 of 2004 Date of decision: 13.07.2010 New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Krishan Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Suman Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, 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 award without specifically providing for a right of recovery against the owner in a case where the Tribunal found that the licence was not issued by the Licensing Authority, Hyderabad as stated in the licence but only the renewal was valid. The Tribunal found so long as the renewal was valid, the Insurance Company would be liable. This aspect has been decidedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Versus Divinder Singh-(2007) 8 SCC 342 that even if the renewal is true, if the original driving licence is fake, it has to be only taken that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The insured did not give any evidence and proceeded ex parte. There was therefore no evidence of the insured FAO No.1698 of 2004 - 2 - to speak about the circumstances under which he employed the driver and any belief that he may have had about the possession of the driving licence. The liability cast on the insurer without providing for a right of recovery against the owner was clearly wrong. The appeal is party allowed providing for a right of recovery against the insured only. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 13.07.2010 sanjeev