JUDGMENT

Nirmaljit Kaur. J. (Oral) - Both the appeals shall stand decided by this common order.FAO-5704-2017 has been filed by the appellant-school against the recovery rights granted to the respondent-Insurance Company.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant while praying for setting aside the award dated 24.05.2017 to the extent vide which the recovery rights have been granted, argued that as per the well settled proposition of law, the recovery rights cannot be given and the liability cannot be fastened upon the owner, in case the owner has seen the driving licence and had also tested the driving ability of the concerned driver. The alleged driving licence was placed on record as Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-18. Reliance is placed on record the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs. National Insurance Company, (2013) 4 RCR (Civil) 273, wherein it was held that, in case, the owner has seen the driving licence and satisfied himself of his driving, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability.

3. Any person of a rural background will have no expertise to know as to whether the driving licence is fake or not. Leave alone a person from rural