FAO No.1907 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH X Obj No.18-CII of 2007 FAO No.1907 of 2006 Date of Decision. 23.09.2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Deputy Manager, Regional Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Khubi Ram son of Shri Ganga Dan, caste Jat, resident of village Sihi, Sector 8, Faridabad and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the cross-objectors. 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 denying liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal found that the driver did not have a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident namely on 12.05.2001 but still it did not provide for a right of recovery. 2. The issue whether the licence was available on the date is on the face of it a simple issue but the case brings in certain other issues of complexity by the ambiguous entries found in the register. FAO No.1907 of 2006 -2- The register produced before the Court showed that the licence was issued on 19.12.1996 and valid till 18.12.2001. The doubt which was created with reference to this entry was that it ought to have been only upto 18.2.2001 and later, the number "1" had been inserted to cover the period of the accident also. The insurer himself had, therefore sought to produce the application filed and the form of licence issued under Form 6 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. It had also summoned the certificate issued by the licensing authority. The form produced and marked as R-1 showed the licence to be valid from 19.12.1996 to 18.12.2001. On the face of it, there does not appear to be any interpolation in the dated mentioned in the form of licence issued in Form 6. Even the certificate, which has been issued by the Licensing Authority only states that the licence was valid from 19.12.1996 to 18.12.2001. If there was, therefore, a doubt, the doubt is in the entries in the register but they get more than clarified with reference to R-1, the form of licence under the Rules and the certificate issued by the authority. Even apart from this, I cannot accept the plea that there is a licence for four years and six months. As per Section 14, a licence for a light motor vehicle is for five years and in the normal course of events, licence could have been, therefore, only for a period of five years and not for 4 years and 6 months. The problem has come about because in the way of hand-writing, the dates and months are separated by either full stop (.) or oblique signs (/). After the letters 18, an oblique used with number 2 following might either be read as 18.12 or 18.2 depending on the context. Here the context was definitely FAO No.1907 of 2006 -3- with reference to the month, which if it had been wrongly entered in the register, it cannot cause for any prejudice to a driver for I would rather go with the statutory prescription of a licence being valid for a period of five years. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer vehemently argues that it may not always be a case that the licence should have been for a period of five years, for it must be read with reference to when the previous licence had been issued. If there had been an earlier issue of licence, it will be seen in the copy of the licence issued itself. I do not find any mention about the licence in the copy of licence as having been issued earlier on 19.12.1996. Therefore, I reverse the finding of the Tribunal that the driver did not have a valid driving licence on the relevant date of accident on 12.05.2001. 3. There is even a cross appeal by the driver for modification of this finding. Even without such a cross appeal, it could still be possible for the driver to contend that the finding was wrongly recorded. I find, under the circumstances, that the insurer's liability shall be not merely to satisfy the claim of the claimants but shall aso be extended to indemnify the insured. 4. The appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed and the cross appeal filed by the driver is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 23, 2010 Pankaj*