IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.381 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision:01.10.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Surinder Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Tejinderpal Singh, 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 challenges the award in so far as it failed to give recovery rights against the insured/owner when it was clearly established that the original issue of licence was fake. A witness had been brought before Court from the licensing authority to say that the particular licence had not been issued in favour of the diver. The Tribunal found that there had been valid renewals subsequently and, therefore, the licence must be taken to be valid. This position has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Versus Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 that holds that even a valid renewal of a fake would continue to be fake. In this case, the driver and the owner were the same person and if he had been guilty of procuring a FAO No.381 of 2000 (O&M) - 2 - fake licence then he ought to be a person who had committed a breach of terms of the policy. 2. The award of the Tribunal is, therefore, modified to provide for a right of recovery against the owner/insured. 3. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 01.10.2010 sanjeev