IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.229 of 2000 Date of decision:03.08.2010 II. FAO No.230 of 2000 & III. FAO No.231 of 2000 New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Iqbal Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. R.C.Gupta, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 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. All the three cases address the same issue of liability of the insurer in a case where the driver was not known to have had a valid driving licence. It was elicited through evidence of a Local Commissioner, who had obtained access to the original records and who had taken statements from the witnesses of the licensing authority that the particular licence number that was shown in the copy of the licence, had not been issued to the driver of the offending vehicle namely, the truck. The claimant was a person, driving a scooter along with the wife and daughter. The wife and daughter had died in the accident and the FAO No.229 of 2000 - 2 - husband himself was making the claim for personal injuries. 2. In this case, the driver and the owner had initially appeared through counsel but later did not join the trial to offer contra evidence to the evidence adduced by the insurer that the driving licence was fake. The Tribunal held that if the renewal was true, it will be valid to make liable the insurer. This issue has been finally considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Versus Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 that if even a renewal is true the original issue of licence was fake, it cannot be taken as valid licence at all. 3. Under the circumstances, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable without providing for a right of recovery against the insured. In all the cases, the liability of the insurer shall be only to satisfy the respective claims under the awards with the right of recovery from the owner of the truck/insured. 4. All the appeals are allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.08.2010 sanjeev