FAO No.2136 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2136 of 2004 Date of Decision. 15.09.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Shri J.S. Khera, R.O., Sector-17, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Harcharan Singh, aged 30 years, son of Joginder Singh, resident of village Sadho Heri, P.O., Kakrala, Tehsil Nabha, Distt. Patiala and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Gotal Mittal, 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. The insurance company is on appeal challenging the liability cast on it for damage to a vehicle said to have been damaged in a collision with a cantessa car said to have been insured with the appellant-insurer. The contention of the insurance company was that the particular policy number referred to had been insured with one Nadeem Ahmed in respect of a motor cycle and that the policy was filed as R-1 and the officer of the insurance company, who had signed the policy was also examined as RW-1. He also denied that the copy of the policy filed by the claimant that purported to contain the signature of RW-1, was not his signature. The forged nature of the document was also sought to be established FAO No.2136 of 2004 -2- by reference to the fact that the vehicular particulars were referred as cantessa classic and the gross vehicle weight was stated to be 800 CC, which are patently wrong. The claimant or the owner of the cantessa car had no valid explanation to offer for this discrepancy. 2. The Tribunal adopted a strange reasoning that even if the policy is doubtful, the insurance company could recover the amount from the insurance agent. There is no such principle in law. On the other hand, it is dangerous proposition to adopt by the Tribunal. If there was no policy and the policy was found to be forged at the instance of the owner of the cantessa car, then no liability could have been cast on the insurance company. 3. The award against the insurance company is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 15, 2010 Pankaj*