Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hari Ram Son Of Sewa Ram vs Smt. Gurdev Kaur And Others on 4 February, 2014
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.2119 of 1994 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.2119 of 1994
Date of Decision.04.02.2014
Hari Ram son of Sewa Ram ......Appellant
Versus
Smt. Gurdev Kaur and others ......Respondents
Present: Mr. Mohan Jain, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Jagjit Singh Chatrath, Advocate for
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
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 only point before this Court is the issue of liability where the owner had claimed in evidence he had verified the licence to have been renewed at DTO office and he acted on the same. It turned out in evidence that the original issue of licence was fake. Though it has been held by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 that a fake licence even if renewed will continue to be fake, the point that has to be still seen is whether the owner was guilty of any breach of terms of policy. If the owner acts on the bona fide belief that he had looked into the driving licence and he was satisfied that it was issued and renewed at DTO, that would be sufficient unless in the manner laid down by the Supreme Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corpn. v. National Insurance Co., Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.02.05 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2119 of 1994 -2- (2013) 10 SCC 217 when the insurer calls upon the owner to make further verification from the licensing authority and the insured failed to do. That is the only exceptional situation where the insurer could be absolved. When there was evidence given by the owner himself relating to his bona fides that must be taken as valid ground to allow him benefit of full indemnity from the insurer.
2. The award passed by the Tribunal stands modified as regards the liability and the insured will have a right of indemnity of liability from the insurer. The appeal by the owner is allowed in the above terms.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 04, 2014 Pankaj* Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.02.05 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh