FAO No.4680 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4680 of 2006 Date of Decision. 31.08.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, having its Regional Office at Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Manager ......Appellant Versus Rajesh Chawla son of Sh. Dharampal Chawla, resident of Sarawati Colony, Opp. Madhu Authomobiles, Jagadhari Distt. Yamuna Nagar and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate 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 on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. At the trial, the insurance company brought on record the copy of the register and the evidence of a clerk from the Licensing Authority to show that the particular licence which was said to have been issued to the driver had not indeed been issued to him and that it was fake. The Tribunal also held the original licence to be fake but found the subsequent renewal had been genuine. It has now come through a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC FAO No.4680 of 2006 -2- 698 that even if the renewal is genuine and the original licence is fake, it should only be taken that the licence was not a valid licence at all. 2. The validity of a licence or otherwise will be tested again in the context of the bonafides of the belief of the owner. In this case, the owner has given evidence to the effect that he had inspected the licence at the time of engaging the services of the driver and he was under the belief that the licence, which was produced was genuine. This is sufficient to protect the owner and obtain indemnity from the insurer. 3. The award of the Tribunal under the circumstances shall be retained and the appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 31, 2010 Pankaj*