FAO No.1735 of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1735 of 1999 Date of decision July 2, 2010 New India Assurance Company Ltd. ....... Appellant Versus Smt. Murti and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ***** Present:- Mr. Deepak Suri , Advocate for the appellant. K. Kannan, J (oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment of the MACT against the liability cast on it, in spite of the fact that the driver who drove the vehicle was proved to have had no driving licence. 2. The liability of the Insurance Company in a case of a fake licence or a renewal of a licence which was a fake one have been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in serveral cases and the decisions in National Insurance Co. V. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 342 are instructive. In the latter judgment, it has been held that a renewal of a fake driving licence is no licence at all and hence the insurer shall not be liable. 3. It was even held earlier by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while referring to the effect of a renewal of forged licence, in New India Assurance Co., Shimla Vs. Kamla (2001) 4 SCC 342: The observation of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sucha Singh that renewal of a document which purports to be a driving licence, will robe even a forged document with validity on account of Section 15 of the Act, propounds a very dangerous proposition. If that FAO No.1735 of 1999 2 proposition is allowed to stand as a alegal principle, it may, no doubt, thrill counterfeiters the world over as they would be encouraged to manufacture fake documents in a legion. What was originally a forgery would remain null and void forever and it would not acquire legal validity at any time by whatever process of sanctification subsequently done on it. Forgery is antithesis t legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery. 4. Although the claimants produced a copy of the driving licence, the Insurance Company had let in evidence by examining the licencing Authority to give evidence of the fact that the alleged renewal had not been carried out at their office. The Tribunal discredited the evidence only on the fact that application form and other records of driving licence in the original register itself did not contain the name of the driver. It is inconceivable as to how the production of application form was possible if there was no proof that there was a driving licence issued. The Insurance Company cannot do any more than bringing the register. The onus of proof had certainly shifted to the owner to prove that there had been a valid licence. 5. Under the circumstances, the insurance Company shall not be liable to indemnify the insured. The liability is to satisfy the claim under the award with a right of recovery against the insured. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 2, 2010 archana