Appeal by insurer against Tribunal award in a 1996 fatal motor accident claim. The driver's licence was found fake per the Local Commissioner's report; following Supreme Court authority on fake licences, the High Court exempted the insurer from liability and made the owner and driver jointly and severally liable for compensation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
********
103
FAO-737-1999 (O&M) Date of Decision:29.10.2025
Na+onal Insurance Co. Ltd. …..Appellant
Vs.
Jagir Kaur and Others .….Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:Mr. Gopal Mi�al, Advocate for the appellant.
Respondents ex parte vide order dated 07.03.2025.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Ini"ally appearance was made on behalf of respondent/driver
and owner but later on nobody had put in appearance.
NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.10.29 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-737-1999
-2-
NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.10.29 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-737-1999
-3-
(Ex.R3) available on the trial Court record which would reveal that before visi"ng the office of D.T.O. Mokokchung, the no"ce to counsel for all the par"es was sent by said Local Commissioner. The counsel for the driver as well as the owner had the full opportunity to cross-examine the witness but they preferred not to do so. The report is quite clear to the effect that driving license relied upon by the driver/owner of the offending vehicle was fake as it was not issued by the office of D.T.O. Mokokchung, which purported to had issued the same.
“However, learned Single Judge of the High Court proceeded on wrong assump"on and held it otherwise giving rise to filing of the present appeal. The findings of learned Single Judge that even if driver was having a fake licence, would not exonerate the Insurance Company as he was not negligent in driving, are certainly erroneous. Driving without licence or with a fake licence and driving a vehicle negligently are two different aspects of the ma�er. Holding a valid driving licence is a requirement of law. If the vehicle was being driven by a person holding a valid licence, but rashly and negligently, is a ma�er of evidence. The very fact which stood established that licence of driver Jagdish was a fake one, would completely exonerate Insurance Company.”
appeal is hereby accepted. Though the claimant shall be en"tled to the compensa"on but it will be payable only by the owner and driver of the
NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.10.29 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-737-1999
-4-
offending vehicle jointly and severally. The insurance company-appellant is
hereby exempted from its liability.
ini"ate necessary proceedings to recover it from the owner/driver.
(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE
October 29, 2025 Nee"ka Tuteja
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.10.29 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner when the driver's licence was proved fake by the Local Commissioner's report.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sujata AroraFollowed¶6
2013(3) TAC 29
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Jagir Kaur
Others
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
