Judgment:
FAO No.10 of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.10 of 1997 Date of Decision.26.02.2014 National Insurance Company Ltd......Appellant Versus Smt.
Sukhdei and others ......Respondents Present: Mr.Tarun Singla, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Nitin Mittal, Advocate for Mr.Alok Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.Tavinder Singla, Advocate for respondent No.4.
CORAM:HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.
KANNAN1 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 appeal is by the insurance company on the issue of liability on the ground that the driver did not have valid driving licence.
At the trial, the insurance company relied on a report of the commissioner Ex.R8 to the effect that the driving licence had not been issued or renewed by the licensing authority at Cuttak.
Examining this issue, the Tribunal found that the driving licence showed further renewal from 25.04.1990 to 24.04.1995 and that had not been issued by the licensing authority at Cuttak.
Even the name of the second licensing authority was not legible.
M/s Punjab Industrial Works PVT.Ltd to which the vehicle appears to have been entrusted for body building had Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.03 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.10 of 1997 -2- given evidence through RW2 Harpal Singh that they had appointed the driver Ravinder Singh only after verifying and believing the original licence to be genuine.
If the employer examines the licence and believes bona fide that it is genuine, it is not to be expected that the employer must go after the licensing authority and seek for verification whether they had issued such a driving licence.
This point has been recently considered by the Supreme Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corpn.v.National Insurance Co., (2013) 10 SCC217where the Supreme Court had held that unless the insurer had directed the insured to make such a verification or it had drawn the owner's attention that the driving licence was fake, there was no necessity for the employer to make verification with the licensing authority.
I will, therefore, take the evidence of RW2 itself is sufficient to secure a full right of indemnity for the amount assessed by the Tribunal through insurance company.
2.
I do not find any merit in the appeal by the insurer.
The appeal is dismissed.
(K.
KANNAN) JUDGE February 26, 2014 Pankaj* Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.03 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh