FAO No.2244 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2244 of 2000 Date of Decision. 07.07.2010 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney ........Appellant Versus Monu minor son of Shri Balraj son of Suleman and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, 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 in appeal against the judgment of the MACT contending that in spite of the fact that the driver who drove the vehicle was proved to have had a fake driving licence, the liability is wrong cast on it. 2. The liability of the Insurance Company in a case of a fake licence or a renewal of a licence which was a fake one have been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases and the decisions in National Insurance Co v Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 and United Indian Insurance v Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 are instructive. In the latter judgment, it has been held that a FAO No.2244 of 2000 -2- renewal of a fake driving licence is no licence at all and hence the insurer shall not be liable. 3. The Court has considered the evidence extensively at paragraph 15 and 16. In particular, it has said that the licence No.18933 was not shown to have been issued to any person, other than the driver Sucha Singh. The register showed against the No.18933, a person's name Lehna Singh but the number i.e. 18933 had been cut off and No.19183 had been substituted and Lehna Singh's photograph has been pasted. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that there were several corrections and deletions in the register and did not find the document produced before the Court as worthy of credibility. Strangely, the driver had yet another licence also, said to have been issued by SDM Office, Sonepat and witness who came to give evidence about it, was unable to accept whether it was a valid licence. Taking the totality of the evidence placed before it, the Tribunal found that the burden placed on the insurer of proving that the owner had committed a breach of terms of policy by entrusting the vehicle to a person, who did not have a valid driving licence. It found the Insurance Company wholly liable and also indemnified the insured. 4. I do not find any error in the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 07, 2010 Pankaj*