IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.31-CII of 1993 in/and FAO No.1594 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:10.09.2010 The National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Sohna Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Parveen Hans, Advocate, for respondent No.7. ---- 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 disputing the liability on the ground that the driver, who drove the Haryana State Transport bus was not duly licensed and, therefore, the liability must be borne only by the State as the owner of the bus and not by the insurer. It was elicited in evidence that the bus had been entrusted with the driver Inder Singh and he had stopped the vehicle to attend the calls of the nature when yet another person Jaibir Singh without having a licence, drove the vehicle and involved it in an accident. The issue is whether by the only fact that the person that drove the vehicle did not have a driving licence, it excludes the liability of the insurer. A similar situation was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Skandia Insurance Company Limited Cross Objection No.31-CII of 1993 in/and - 2 - FAO No.1594 of 1992 (O&M) Versus Kokilaben Chandravan-1987 (2) SCC 654 which held that if the owner had entrusted the vehicle to a person, who was duly licensed and in the absence of the driver or by the negligent act of the driver, yet another person took the vehicle in charge and involved it in an accident, the Court said that the owner could not be said to have committed any breach of terms of the policy to lose a right of indemnity from the insurer. I will apply the same principle as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and find the insurer liable, no matter the person, who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident, was not duly licensed. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. 2. Counsel for the 7th respondent states that he would withdraw the cross appeal which he has filed denying his involvement of the vehicle. 3. Ordered as such. The cross appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.09.2010 sanjeev