F.A.O.NO. 1137 OF 1998, F.A.O.NO. 1138 OF 1998 and 1 F.A.O.NO. 1139 OF 1998 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1137 OF 1998 Date of decision:18th August, 2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Krishan Kumar and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1138 OF 1998 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Mukesh Kumar and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1139 OF 1998 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Nitu and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No F.A.O.NO. 1137 OF 1998, F.A.O.NO. 1138 OF 1998 and 2 F.A.O.NO. 1139 OF 1998 K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the liability cast on it on the ground that the driver did not have a valid Driving Licence. A copy of the Driving Licence had been produced through the driver. The licence gave the number as C-94080895, which had been issued by Mall Road Authority, New Delhi. A clerk from the Mall Road Authority, New Delhi was examined with reference to the register containing the particular licence number. The register showed that it had been issued in the name of Zahir Ahmad and not in the name of the driver named as Suresh. The Tribunal did not accept this evidence on the ground that the witness had admitted that even apart from the Licencing Authority at Mall Road there were 10 other officers and he did not know whether the licence could have been issued by any other authority. The called admission, in my view, is not an admission at all. It fails to take note of Rule 23 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act 1987 that contemplates State register to be maintained in a particular Form 10 under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. New Delhi is a State and the register which Rule 23 contemplates is a register for the whole State where a particular number cannot be replicated in any licence issued by any other divisional or regional offices. Clause I in Form 10 refers to driving licence no. and the date of initial issue. The form which refers to licence no. cannot be a number within each division will again issue. Rule 10 contemplates a single register F.A.O.NO. 1137 OF 1998, F.A.O.NO. 1138 OF 1998 and 3 F.A.O.NO. 1139 OF 1998 for the entire State. 2. I therefore, uphold the contention of the insurer that the driving licence produced by the driver was fake and the insurer could not have been made liable. The liability would however subsist to satisfy the claimants only and the insurer will have a right of recovery against the owner/insured. 3. Awards which are the subject matter in all the appeals are modified to provide for right of recovery to the insurer and the appeals are allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 18th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik