IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1790 of 2000(O&M) Date of decision:04.10.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Tarlochan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ravinder Mohan Suri, 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. The Insurance Company challenges the award on the ground that the driver had been proved not duly licensed but the Tribunal rejected the contention only on the ground that even apart from the original issue of licence, there had been renewals and even the renewals were not proved to be fake. In this case, a Local Commissioner had been appointed to go to the Licensing Authority at Gwalior to collect the evidence and the report was that the licence was fake. No objections had been given to the report. If the licence was fake, then a valid renewal cannot make a difference in the manner laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Versus Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342. FAO No.1790 of 2000 (O&M) - 2 - 2. The award of the Tribunal is, under the circumstances, modified to make the insurer liable only to satisfy the claim of the claimants and recover the same against the insured. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 04.10.2010 sanjeev