UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAM SAWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to our order dated 19th September, 2001, Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate - Commissioner, has submitted his Report in the Court along with the statement of the witness, namely Kamaldeo Marandi.

(2.) A reading of the statement of the witness, Kamaldeo Marandi, does suggest that with respect to the driving licence No. 3634/ 88. there is some dispute, viz. whether the licence was issued and held validly and legally in the name of Md. Izhar (the driver of the offending Bus) son of Usman Mian or in the name of Gopal Mahato (Some other person) son of Kamal Mahato. We are purposely and deliberately avoiding to make any definite comment or expressing any opinion on this aspect of the matter at this stage because of the order that we propose to pass.

(3.) REFERENCE is invited to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company. Shlmla v. Kamla and Ors., and to other related cases reported in AIR 2001 SC 1419. In this case their Lordships of the Supreme Court were dealing with a similar and identical situation where the contention of the Insurer before the Supreme Court was that because the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence, the Insurance Company in terms of Section 149(2) of the Act was not liable to satisfy the award and pay the award amount to the claimants. Of course, in this case there was an added question as to whether once a driving licence as originally issiued was a forgery, could its renewal validate the forgery and could the effect of the renewal of such a originally forged licence be to legalise the licence and make it a valid one in the eyes of Law. On this question, their Lordships clearly held that what was originally a forgery would remain null and void for ever and it would not acquire legal validity at any time by whatever process of sanctification subsequently done on it. Forgery is antithesis to legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery. The following observations in this judgment are apposite on this question. We quote,