FAO No.5939 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5939 of 2002 Date of Decision. 29.07.2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited, having its regional office at SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through Sh. D.K. Gogra, Asstt. Manager duly constituted attorney .........Appellant Versus Smt. Satwati and others .......Respondents 2. FAO No.5940 of 2002 The New India Assurance Company Limited, having its regional office at SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through Sh. D.K. Gogra, Asstt. Manager duly constituted attorney .........Appellant Versus Mrs. Basiri wd/o Mamraj and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for the appellant. 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. These two cases address the issue relating to the liability of insurance company for the fact that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. It was brought on evidence that the driver had two licences issued one from Delhi and another from Agra. The FAO No.5939 of 2002 -2- licence issued from Delhi commenced from 25.05.1999 to 24.05.2002 for three years but the accident had taken place on 18.05.1998. With reference to the other licence issued from Agra, it was found to be false by evidence of RW-2, who was licensing clerk. The renewal endorsement which had been obtained during the time when the accident had taken place was in relation to the licence which was produced to be fake. It has been held in United India Insurance Company Limited v Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 that even a fake renewal of a valid licence or a genuine renewal of a fake licence will both be fake. The insurance company could not be made liable without providing for right of recovery against the insured. 2. Both the appeals are partly allowed to make the insurer liable to satisfy only the claims of the respective claimants with the right of recovery against the insured. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 29, 2010 Pankaj*