FAO No.1365 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1365 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 09.02.2011 Ran Singh son of Sh. Ranjeet Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Pawan Kumar and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate for the appellants. 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 appeal is filed at the instance of the owner and driver against recovery rights granted to the insurance company after satisfying the award. While dealing with the issue No.2 in paragraph 17, the Tribunal has referred to the fact that a Clerk from the Licensing Authority, which was said to have issued the licence initially, stated that the licence had not been issued by them, although the subsequent renewals had been established on behalf of the owner that the licence had been renewed by the authorities at Hisar. If the original issue of licence was not genuine, then a renewal by a Licensing Authority, which is properly established cannot make the licence genuine as held by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Devinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342. The finding of the Tribunal, therefore, that there had been a violation of terms of policy was justified, especially in view of the fact that the owner had FAO No.1365 of 2011 (O&M) -2- himself no evidence to give before the Court as to his own bona fides of belief about the character of the driving licence. 2. The award of the Tribunal allowing for recovery rights was under the circumstances justified and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 09, 2011 Pankaj*