FAO No.5819 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5819 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.9.2011 M/s Jindal Rice Mill ...Appellant(s) Versus Major (Retired) Surinder Singh Sheoran and others ...Respondent(s) FAO NO.5820 OF 2009 M/s Jindal Rice Mill ...Appellant(s) Versus Niranjan Singh and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Gaurav Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, Ms.Anamica Mehta, Advocate, Mr.Sachin Gupta and Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. CMNo.30027-28 CII For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed. The delay of 155 days in filing and 11 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Main case This judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. FAO No.5819 FAO No.5819 of 2009 (O&M) 2 of 2009 and FAO No.5820 of 2009 (filed by M/s Jindal Rice Mill, being owner of the offending vehicle) as the same have arisen out of the common award dated 3.1.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for short `the Tribunal). The facts leading to the present appeals are that on 18.12.2005 at about 6.00 p.m., the claimants Niranjan Singh and Major Surinder Singh, were travelling in an Indica Car bearing registration No.HR-61-AN-HQ- 1120 (T), which was driven by Niranjan Singh and Major Surinder Singh was sitting on the rear seat of the car. At village Sekhpura, District Patiala, they met with an accident with a truck bearing registration No.PB-11-C- 2445 (for short `the offending vehicle), which was driven by respondent No.2. Due to the impact, Niranjan Singh and Major Surinde Singh suffered grievous and multiple injuries. In the claim petition, the injured/claimants took the stand that the alleged accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and hearing both the parties awarded the compensation to the tune of `43,400/- to Niranjan Singh, claimant and `77,100/- to Major Surinder Singh, claimant on account of injuries sustained by them and held liable the owner/appellant and driver/respondent No.2 to pay the awarded amount for the alleged accident. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award of the learned Tribunal, the appellant, being owner of the offending vehicle, has preferred the instant appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The sole question involved in the present appeal is that whether FAO No.5819 of 2009 (O&M) 3 the appellant is liable to pay the awarded compensation or not. There is no dispute that the alleged accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 It is also not disputed that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. However, the respondent No.3 took the stand that respondent No.2 was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence, Mark `A', which is evident from the statements of Gurpal Singh, RW1 and Sanjay Kumar, RW2. As per the statement of Sanjay Kumar, RW2, it is made out that no licence was issued to Gurdeep Singh, respondent No.2 from licensing authority, Una. The learned counsel for the appellant took the stand that the licence was renewed by the competent authority which amounts to compliance of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such the respondent is statutory liable to pay the compensation. 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 shall not be liable. In view of above, both the appeals are dismissed being devoid of any merit. 19.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mks JUDGE