IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3279 of 1996 Date of decision:09.09.2010 Harbans Kaur and others ....Appellants versus Rakesh Kumar and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.9 of 1997 National Insurance Company ....Appellant versus Smt. Gurdeep Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Tejinderpal Singh, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. None for other parties. ---- 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 is in appeal against the liability cast on it on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. A copy of the licence produced by the driver was said to have been issued by the Licensing Authority at Gwalior and renewed subsequently at FAO No.3279 of 1996 - 2 - Amritsar. A Clerk from the Licensing Authority at Gwalior gave evidence to the effect that no such licence as found in the copy had been issued by their office. A Clerk from the office at Amritsar was also examined to say that the renewal entry that was found, was not genuine. This evidence of one Clerk was contradicted by yet another Clerk from the Transport Office at Amritsar to say that there had been actually a renewal and entered in the book at serial No.4286 which was valid during the period of accident and till 02.07.1997. The Tribunal relied on the judgment in National Insurance Company Versus Sucha Singh- 1994(1) PLR (P&H) 140 to say that since the renewal was genuine, the fact that the original was a fake had no relevance. This decision has been found to be not correct in National Insurance Company Versus Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 and the principle was reaffirmed in United India Insurance Versus Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 to say that even if the renewal was genuine and the original licence was fake, the entire licence must only be seen to be fake. The owner did not examine himself to give any evidence to explain about the circumstances under which he was engaged and whether he knew the fake character of licence or not. The Insurance Company could not have been made liable to indemnify the insured under the circumstances. 2. The award of the Tribunal would, therefore, be required to be modified to make it liable only to satisfy the claimants and recover the same against the insured. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. 3. There is an appeal for enhancement filed at the instance of the claimants in FAO No.3279 of 1996. There is no representation on FAO No.3279 of 1996 - 3 - behalf of the claimants and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed for default of appearance. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.09.2010 sanjeev