F.A.O.NOs. 1832 to 1838 OF 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1832 OF 1995 Date of decision:30th September, 2010 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Sirhind through Shri S.C.Sharma, Admn. Officer, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Chanchal Rani and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1833 OF 1995 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Sirhind through Shri S.C.Sharma, Admn. Officer, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Sunder Lal Mehta and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1834 OF 1995 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Sirhind through Shri S.C.Sharma, Admn. Officer, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Onkar Singh and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1835 OF 1995 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Sirhind through Shri S.C.Sharma, Admn. Officer, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Bhola Nath Mehta and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1836 OF 1995 F.A.O.NOs. 1832 to 1838 OF 1995 -2- National Insurance Co. Ltd. Sirhind through Shri S.C.Sharma, Admn. Officer, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Suman Gosai and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1837 OF 1995 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Sirhind through Shri S.C.Sharma, Admn. Officer, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Bhola Nath Mehta and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1838 OF 1995 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Sirhind through Shri S.C.Sharma, Admn. Officer, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Krishan Devi and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Samandeep Singh, Advocate, for Mr. A.S.Kalra, Advocate, for the respondent. 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 K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. In the batch of cases the only point survives for F.A.O.NOs. 1832 to 1838 OF 1995 -3- consideration is the issue of question of liability of the insurer where it was proved that the original issue of licence was fake. This was proved by RW-1, a clerk of the Licencing Authority, Solan, who produced the record to show that the licence had not been issued by the Licencing Authority at Solan. The copy of the licence showed that it had been issued under Licence No. 793/96 of 1984 dated 13.06.1984. The alleged licence carried an endorsement of renewal of the year 1999. It was elicited that he had not brought the record of renewal. The Tribunal therefore, held that even if the original licence had been invalid, by the fact that renewal had been effected, it must be taken that the insurer did not prove the renewal also be valid. It relied on a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Suchha Singh (1994)1 PLR 140 that held that if the renewal was genuine then even the fake licence could be treated as genuine. Law has undergone a change with pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance v. Davinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 where it was held that even if the renewal is genuine but the original issue of licence is proved to be fake, it would be fake. There has been no explanation or evidence given either by the driver or the owner with reference to the evidence tendered through RW-1. The insured had been guilty of violation of terms of policy and consequently, the insurer could not be expected to indemnify the insured. 2. The awards of the Tribunal are modified to provide for F.A.O.NOs. 1832 to 1838 OF 1995 -4- liability to the insurer only to satisfy the claimants and recover the same against the insured/owner. The appeals are allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 30th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik