Per Justice G.D. Sharma, J. (Oral) 1. Order dated 15.01.2007 passed by Learned Divisional Forum, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as Forum) has been challenged through the medium of this appeal which is time barred by 17 days. The appeal is accompanied by application for condoning the delay. As there seems to be merit in the appeal as well as reasons have been assigned in the application for the cause of the delay we hold that this amounts to showing sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. The application is accepted and appeal is admitted to its number for hearing. The office is directed to register the appeal. 2. With the assistance of the counsel of the appellant we have perused the impugned order and find that the Forum has solely relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarn Singh AIR 2004 (SC), 1531 as well as the decision of the Hon'ble J&K High Court reported in 2004 (II) SLJ, 623. In the above stated judgment it has been held:- "..Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time." The above stated preposition of law has undergone a sea change after the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the matter in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narian Dhutt 2007 (2) Supreme, 721 and subsequently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Davindar Singh 2008 ACJ,1. The sum and substance of the ratio decidendi of the above stated cases is that if a driver originally had a fake licence which was subsequently renewed; such a renewal cannot take away the effect of the fake licence. Ltd. v. Davindar Singh 2008 ACJ,1. The sum and substance of the ratio decidendi of the above stated cases is that if a driver originally had a fake licence which was subsequently renewed; such a renewal cannot take away the effect of the fake licence. The beneficial consequences which had flowed in favour of the insured herein in view of the law laid down in Swarn Singh's case (supra) cannot now be granted in favour of an owner of the insured vehicle. 3. Adverting to the facts of the present case, we find that the appellant had got the licence of the driver Brij Mohan verified from investigator namely, Mr. Joginder Singh who had obtained a certificate from Licensing Authority MVD Poudi Region Kotdware (U.P), stating therein that driving licence which was sent there for verification allegedly issued bearing No. D/103/KDR in the name of Brij Mohan had actually been issued in the name of one Shri Balbir Singh. The appellant had made two applications before the Forum for summoning the record in original from Licensing Authority Kotdware but in terms of the interim order dated 24.01.2006 the right to lead further evidence was closed on the basis of the law laid down in the Swarn Singh's case (supra). 4. In view of the changed legal position, the burden was on the respondent to prove that driver Brij Mohan was possessing valid and effective licence from the very beginning which on its expiry got renewed from different Licensing Authorities as mentioned in the driving licence. That burden has not been discharged and the impugned order is found suffering from patent illegality and infirmity. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside but without any order as to costs. The appeal is consigned to records and the record of the Forum be returned at once.