IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2123 of 2005 Date of decision:31.08.2010 New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Rakesh Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. None 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 contending that there was no valid driving licence for the driver. In this case, the Insurance Company has moved an application under Order 11 for production of the driving licence and the driver has given a statement in Court that he did not have a driving licence. That, in my view, would conclude the issue that the driver was not having a driving licence. The award passed by the Tribunal making the insurer liable was clearly untenable. 2. The case suffers from a much more fundamental vice. In the course of the proceedings, the claimant has given up the owner of the truck which was involved in the accident. The question of making the insurer liable cannot arise when the claim against the owner had been FAO No.2123 of 2005 - 2 - relinquished. The enforcement of the claim against the insurer become possible by a contract of insurance with the owner and statutorily protected under Section 147 in cases where there is a need for compulsory insurance. The insurer may not be a necessary party in every proceeding but the insured always is. After giving up the insured, the case could not have proceeded against the insurer to make it liable. The liability cast on the insurer ought to fail for this reason as well. 3. At the time when the matter was admitted on 13.05.2005, this Court has admitted the case only against respondents 2 and 3 and has dismissed the appeal against the others. Having regard to such a course, it shall become possible for the insurer to claim the recovery only against the driver and the owner of the vehicle. A strange situation is that the owner was not even made as a party and he had been given up and by a direction of this Court already made, the appeal was to be heard only in the presence of the party who had been given up. 4. The appeal is allowed to the extent of allowing the insurer to recover the amount in independent proceedings against the insured only. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 31.08.2010 sanjeev