FAO No. 977 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 977 of 2010 Date of decision January 24 , 2011 Vijayvir and another ....... Appellants Versus Karambir and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. S. K. Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Raj Mohan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Suvir Dewan , Advocate for respondent No.3. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeal is by the owner/driver challenging the award against him on the ground that the driver did not have a driving license at the relevant time. His contention was that though driving license had expired, he had obtained renewal for the same four days after the accident. According to him, it was definitely a case where he was not disqualified from holding a license and therefore the Insurance Company must have been made liable. Learned counsel refers to the decision of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarn Singh reported in 2004 (3) SCC 297 that decided the issue on the effect of renewal of a fake license or renewal of a valid license. The Court held that the issue of license itself may not obtain relevance in certain situations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had referred to two such situations namely i) the accident taken place by FAO No. 977 of 2010 2 act of God ii) when the accident was a result of a mechanical failure of the vehicle. 2. These two situations did not obtain in this case. It was a simple issue whether the driver had a valid license or not. The fact that he did not have a valid driving license at the relevant time and that it was renewed only subsequently are admitted facts. This point is fully covered by at least four decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. United Indian Insurance v Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 , National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jarnail Singh 2007 (15) SCC 28, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chander Aggarwal 2009 (15)SCC 761 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vidyadhar Mahariwala 2008 (4) PLR 746 which held that if renewal had taken place subsequent to the date of accident and beyond the period of 30 days from the date when the license had expired which is a grace period provided under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot be stated that the driver was duly licensed. The contention of the appellant is wholly without merit and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 24, 2011 archana