FAO No.123 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.123 of 1996 Date of Decision. 08.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., Jalandhar through Shri Amandeep Singh Admn. Officer, Regional Office, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Manmohan Kaur wd/o Sh. Gurdev Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pradeep Bedi, 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 on the ground that at the relevant time of the accident on 11.09.1992, the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The driver had produced a licence that was said to contain an endorsement of renewal of a licence, which had expired on 10.12.1991. The attempt of the insurer at the trial was to prove that the so-called endorsement was fake. An official from the Licensing Authority, Hoshiarpur was examined as RW4, who had brought the renewal register for the year 1988-89. As per the entry Sr. No.5382 showed that the licence had been renewed only upto FAO No.123 of 1996 -2- 10.11.1991. RW-2 was a clerk from the Licensing Authority at Tohana, who had brought the renewal register from the Licensing Authority at Tohana pertaining to the year 1990-1991 and it was shown that the particular No.98191, which was referred to in the copy of the licence produced by the driver was not all there in the original register. The register that he had brought before the Court was for the period from 1990 till the date when he gave the evidence in the year 1994. For all the period, the last entry in the register for the year 1991 was Sr. No.6931 and on 10.12.1991, the Sr. No.6866 was mentioned. Evidently, the driver was relying on a renewal, which was fake. The Tribunal was in error in stating that the insurance company had not established that the renewal was fake. There was no evidence of the owner to explain the discrepancy. 2. The liability of the insurer shall be only to satisfy the claim of the claimants and it will have a right of recovery against the owner-insured. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 08, 2010 Pankaj*