F.A.O.NO. 2638 OF 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 2638 OF 1998 Date of decision:29th July, 2010 United India Insurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Dharam Wati and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. V.Ramswaroop, 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. In this case the point in issue is whether the renewal of licence which is proved to be genuine and the original licence which is proved to be fake will avail to the Insurance Company the right of defence to plead that it is not liable. The Tribunal has found through the evidence offered through clerk from the Licencing Authority at Muradabad that the licence had not been issued in the name of the driver but the renewal of the licence was however, found to be genuine from the Licencing Authority at Mathura. If the original licence is fake it makes no difference whether the renewal was validly done or not, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance v Divinder F.A.O.NO. 2638 OF 1998 2 Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342. Licence must be taken to be fake for all purpose and the insurer would not be liable. 2. The Insurance Company's liability will stay only to satisfy the claim of the claimants with a right of recovery against the insured. The amount directed to be paid with the interest awarded @ 18% is exorbitant as the award had been issued in the year 1998. The amount had already been deposited as per orders of the Court. The interest shall stand modified to 12 %. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 29th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik