FAO No.2044 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2044 of 1998 Date of Decision.01.07.2010 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its Assistant Manager, Regional Office, SCO 36-37, Sector 17, Chandigarh. ........Appellant Versus Smt. Malti wd/o Ram Partap and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.A. Yadav, Advocate 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 against the liability cast on it, contending that in spite of the fact that the driver who drove the vehicle was proved to have had a fake driving licence, it still wrongly found it liable. 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 decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 are instructive. In the latter judgment, it has been held that a renewal of a fake driving licence is no licence at all and hence the insurer shall not be liable. FAO No.2044 of 1998 -2- 3. It was even held earlier by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while referring to the effect of a renewal of forged licence, in New India Assurance Co., Shimla VS. Kamla (2001) 4 SCC 342: “The observation of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sucha Singh that renewal of a document which purports to be a driving licence, will robe even a forged document with validity on account of Section 15 of the Act, propounds a very dangerous proposition. If that proposition is allowed to stand as a legal principle, it may, no doubt, thrill counterfeiters the world over as they would be encouraged to manufacture fake documents in a legion. What was originally a forgery would remain null and void forever and it would not acquire legal validity at any time by whatever process of sanctification subsequently done on it. Forgery is antithesis to legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery.” 4. On the issue relating to want of licence, the Tribunal has considered at length the evidence produced on behalf of the insurance company and has observed as follows:- “Anil Kayashta (RW1) in his deposition has stated that he has been driving the scooter for the last 6 years and possess a driving licence. According to him learner licence was issued by the Licensing Authority, Janak Puri, Delhi, in his name on 09.03.1994 and proved the copy of the same as Ex.R1. He had brought the original licence with him. FAO No.2044 of 1998 -3- This copy clearly shows that licence No.28 dated 09.03.1994 was issued to Anil Kayastha which was valid for six months. He has also stated that he had obtained licence from Licensing Authority, Gurgaon which he has mis-placed during the shifting from Gurgaon to Delhi. Thereafter he had obtained driving licence from the Licensing Authority, Ballabhgarh which is valid upto 20.10.2007 and produced the copy of the licence bearing No.9861-B-95. He had brought the original licence with him. In order to dislodge the force of his testimony Insurance Company examined Gajraj Singh, Licence Clerk to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ballabgarh (RW3) who had brought the summoned record. He testified that licence bearing No.9861/B/95 dated 29.10.1995 was issued in the name of Shyam Kumar son of Balwa Kumar resident of 58 New Janta Colony, Faridabad and is valid upto 28.10.2013. This licence was issued for Motorcycle and Motor Car. He further admitted that photograph of Shyam Kumar was pasted on the Register against the entry at Sr. No.9861- B/95 dated 29.10.1995. In his cross examination he admitted that he was not in service at that time when this licence was issued and for that reason he could not say as to who was the licensing authority at that time. He also admitted that on the photograph stamp of licensing authority has not been affixed. He further admitted that in the register licensing authority had not appended its FAO No.2044 of 1998 -4- signatures on the photographs and entries made in the register. On the strength of his statement, it was urged from the side of the respondent No.3 that licence produced by respondent No.1 is fake. The stand taken from the side of Insurance Company as such cannot be accepted because the statement of Gajraj Singh (RW3) leaves no manner of doubt that the register which he had produced is not authenticated register. The reason being that in the register licensing authority has not appended its signatures against the entries in the register.” 5. The Tribunal has definitely considered the document that was filed and has come to the conclusion that the register, which was not duly authenticated could not relied upon. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company strenuously contends that the insurance company could not be responsible for any defect in the register or what it failed to do by a necessary authentication. I am not attributing against the insurance company that it fabricated a document. On the other hand, it is only to affirm a finding that the evidence that was tendered by the insurance company was not found to be worthy of acceptance. I do not find any error in the approach of the Tribunal and I am of the view that it does not call for any interference in appeal. 6. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 01, 2010 Pankaj*