F.A.O.NOs. 1056, 1058 to 1070 OF 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1056 OF 1997 Date of decision:12th August, 2010 United Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Ambala .......Appellant Versus Pushpa and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1058 OF 1997 United Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Ambala .......Appellant Versus Vishav Rup and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1059 OF 1997 United Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Ambala .......Appellant Versus Phool Chand and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1060 OF 1997 United Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Ambala .......Appellant Versus Ram Sahai and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1061 OF 1997 United Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at F.A.O.NOs. 1056, 1058 to 1070 OF 1997 2 Ambala .......Appellant Versus Deep Kumar and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1062 OF 1997 United Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Ambala .......Appellant Versus Smt. Chander Wati and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1063 OF 1997 United Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Ambala .......Appellant Versus Jagdish and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1064 OF 1997 United Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Ambala .......Appellant Versus Veena and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1065 OF 1997 United Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Ambala .......Appellant Versus Veera and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NOs. 1056, 1058 to 1070 OF 1997 3 F.A.O.NO. 1066 OF 1997 United Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Ambala .......Appellant Versus Sandeep Sharma and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1067 OF 1997 United Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Ambala .......Appellant Versus Anteshwari and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1068 OF 1997 United Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Ambala .......Appellant Versus Ram Lal and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1069 OF 1997 United Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Ambala .......Appellant Versus Mamta and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1070 OF 1997 United Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Ambala .......Appellant Versus Ram Rakha and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NOs. 1056, 1058 to 1070 OF 1997 4 BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, 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. All the 14 appeals are connected arising out of the same accident and they are taken up together. 2. The Insurance Company is in appeal on the issue of liability on the ground that the driving licence produced was proved to be fake and the Tribunal was in error in not availing to the insurer the right of recovery against the insured. The contention was that a copy of the driving licence which had been produced before the Criminal Court had been spoken to by the Ahlmad of the Criminal Court and the details with particular licence were examined by reference to register and report of the Licencing Authority at Chamba. The witness who was clerk from the Licencing Authority, Chamba gave evidence that the particular Licence No. which was found in the documents seized from the Criminal Court had not been issued by their office and that the licence was fake. 3. The driver had remained ex parte but the insured F.A.O.NOs. 1056, 1058 to 1070 OF 1997 5 examined himself as a witness and produced a copy of the licence which the driver was alleged to have given to him five years earlier. The said licence had been shown as having been issued by Licencing Authority at Gazipur. The contention of the learned counsel of the appellant was that as per Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the licence could have been issued only from one Licencing Authority and therefore, the licence copy produced by the owner could not have been believed and the other licence ought to have been held as fake. In my view, such a contention betrays want of logic. If only one licence could have been issued and the Insurance Company produced proof of the fact that a particular licence no. found in the document produced before the Criminal Court was found to be fake, it is perfectly possible that the copy of the licence which the owner produced was the only genuine one and yet another licence which were shown to be fake was only fake and indeed fake and the only genuine one was the licence produced by the owner. 4. The breach of condition in terms of the policy is invariably on the insurer and if a copy is produced by the owner unless attempt is made by the insurer to check on the genuineness of such a document produced, it could not be stated that the insurer has discharged his onus of proof. In this case, it is in evidence that the owner had employed him five years before the accident had taken place and he had secured a copy of the licence from the driver. It was immaterial that the driver F.A.O.NOs. 1056, 1058 to 1070 OF 1997 6 remained ex parte. The owner's belief about the genuineness of the licence was a sufficient ground to secure a right of indemnity. The Tribunal could not have found licence produced by the insured was fake without the insurer undertaking an attempt to prove that it was fake. A breach of condition in terms of the policy has not been made out in this case and the liability cast on the insurer under such a circumstance is perfectly justified. 4. All the appeals are dismissed, confirming the award passed by the Tribunal . [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 12th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik