Partly allowed

National Ins.Co. (O&M) v. Shanti etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Sept 2010FAO/5300/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant insurer challenged liability as driver lacked valid licence which was issued to another name. Court allowed appeal to modify award, limiting insurer liability to satisfy claimants with right to recover from State due to State's lack of evidence on licence verification.

What did the court decide?

Award of Tribunal modified to provide insurer right of recovery from State; appeal allowed to that extent.

National Ins.Co. (O&M) Vs Shanti etc. — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

FAO No.5300 of 2002 Date of decision:20.09.2010

¶3

National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant

¶4

versus

¶5

Smt. Shanti and others

¶6

...Respondents

¶7

Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶8

None for respondent No.3.

¶9

Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana, for respondents 4 and 5.

¶10

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶11

To be referred to the reporters or not ?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?

¶13

----

¶14

K.Kannan, J. (Oral)

¶15

The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The insurer had produced the evidence of the licensing Clerk RW2, who gave evidence to the effect that the particular licence number shown in the copy of the licence, produced by the driver, had actually been issued to one Lakhan Singh and was not issued in the name of Mohinder Singh, who was the driver of the insured's vehicle. There had been several renewals of the licence and the Tribunal had accepted the plea that in view of the renewals which were bona fide, it must only be taken that the original licence was genuine. If the original licence is not genuine but

¶16

FAO No.5300 of 2002 - 2 -

¶17

renewals are genuine even then the licence cannot be said to be genuine as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India

¶18

Insurance Company Versus Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342.

¶19

There was no evidence placed on behalf of the State to contend that the licence particulars were at the relevant time properly examined before giving the driver the employment. No evidence had been given by the State to examine the circumstances under which the licence produced by the driver was acted upon.

¶20

Under the circumstances, the liability of the insurer shall only be to satisfy the claimants and recover the same from the State. The award of the Tribunal is modified to provide for such right of recovery and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.

¶21

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE

¶22

20.09.2010 sanjeev

National Ins.Co. (O&M) v. Shanti etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Ins.Co. (O&M) v. Shanti etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pal Singh Vs State of Pb.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Manjinder Kaur and Ors.

Mohinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

(O&M) National Insurance Company Limited Vs Sarbati Devi and Ors.

(O&M) National Ins.Co.Ltd. Vs Darshan Singh & Ors.

(O&M) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Surja Ram and Others