FAO No.391 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.391 of 1994 Date of Decision. 06.09.2010 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ......Appellant Versus Dev Raj son of Bant Ram and others ......Respondents 2. FAO No.392 of 1994 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ......Appellant Versus Kamlesh Rani wife of Sukhdrashan Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 on appeal challenging the liability cast on it on the ground that the driver Bhag Singh was not duly licenced to drive the vehicle. The copy of licence which was produced bore licence No.1947 of 1992-93 as having been issued by the Licensing Authority, Sangrur. This Court had passed an order on FAO No.391 of 1994 -2- 16.07.2010 affording an opportunity to the insurer to produce the original register and summon any official from the office of the Licensing Authority to adduce evidence with reference to the said register. RW-1 is present in Court and he has also brought the register. He has given evidence to the effect that particular licence No.1947 has been issued in the name of Paramjit Singh. The original has been filed in Court and after comparison, the copy of the register has been marked as R-2. Evidently the driver, who was involved in the accident has produced a licence, which was not genuine since the register shows that it had been issued in the name of some one else. The owner and the driver had been served in appeal but they have not entered appearance either through counsel or through themselves. The evidence brought before the Court clearly establishes the fact that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. 2. The award of the Tribunal, therefore, would require to be modified casting the liability to the insurer only to satisfy the claim of the claimants and recover the same against the owner-insured. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 06, 2010 Pankaj*