FAO No.1358 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1358 of 1994 Date of Decision. 15.07.2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Manager, Sector 8, Chandigarh .........Appellant Versus Wazir Sigh son of Durgan and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. Vinod Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants. None 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 Co is in appeal against the judgment of the MACT contending that in spite of the fact that the driver who drove the vehicle was proved to have had a fake driving licence, the liability was wrongly cast on it. 2. The liability of the Insurance Co 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 several cases and the decisions in National Insurance Co v Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 and United Indian Insurance v Divinder Singh (2007) 8 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 FAO No.1358 of 1994 -2- 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 v. Kamla,(2001) 4 SCC 342: 13. The observation of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. 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 proposition is allowed to stand as a legal 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 to legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery. 4. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra) has an immediate relevance for us in this case for the effect of proof of fake licence in the context of the need for discharging the burden of proof on the Insurance company that the insured had committed a breach of terms of the policy. The fact that the driver had a fake licence will absolve the insurer of the liability of the insurer only, if it is established that the accident was on account of reasons where the possession of valid driving licence will FAO No.1358 of 1994 -3- have relevance for consideration of the aspect of negligence that has to be proved. If the accident was on account of say, mechanical defect in the vehicle, the issue of the validity of licence will have no relevance. 5. The insurer had done no more than securing a report of the licensing authority that the licence was not issued by the said authority. The original register had not been summoned. No evidence was given with reference to the register. A mere report cannot be said to have discharged the burden of proof. 6. The claim of exclusion of liability by the Insurance Co cannot be accepted and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 15, 2010 Pankaj*