FAO No.181 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH X Objection No.28-CII of 1998 in FAO No.181 of 2009 Date of Decision. 27.07.2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17- A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ...Appellant Versus Sudesh Kumar S/o Shri Brij Lal and others .......Respondents 2. FAO No.182 of 1998 The New India Assurance Company Limited, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17- A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ...Appellant Versus Piara Lal son of Hari Ram and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. L.M Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. Both the cases arise out of the claim for compensation offered to the representatives of the deceased and an injured when the insurance company urges that the liability cannot be cast on it since the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The accident FAO No.181 of 2009 -2- has taken place on 14.10.1994 and the case has been filed in February, 1995. The statement has been filed by the insurance company taking up a plea of the invalidity of driving licence but only after the evidence was offered and the document was filed in Court, the Insurance company took steps to secure the report that the licence was not genuine. This came about subsequent to the closure of the evidence of the driver/owner and the Tribunal rejected this plea on the ground that it was unduly belated and there was no justification for moving an application for securing evidence with reference to the invalidity of the licence at that late stage. If the Tribunal had rejected the plea, in my view, it had rejected on a ground which is tenable. The insurance company ought to have exercised reasonable alacrity to secure what is in its interest, and which should have protected the insurer from liability or at least provided for a right of recovery from the insured. The claims are for Rs.1,00,000/- for death and Rs.2,00,000/- for the insured and I do not propose to interfere with the award in any sense for giving an opportunity to the insurer for the first time now to prove that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. 2. In my view the Tribunal has approached the issue correctly and would not require any modification at the appellate stage. The appeals by the insurance company are dismissed. 3. Although the cross appeal has been filed for enhancement at the instance of the insured in FAO No.181 of 1998, there is no representation for the cross-appellant at the time when the matter is called. However, I have examined the award of the Tribunal, FAO No.181 of 2009 -3- which refers to the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and its assessment of compensation. The Tribunal has found that he was operated in his right leg at Govt. Medical College, Amritsar after he was discharged from the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. A Medical Officer at Hoshiarpur was examined to speak about the nature of injuries that he had at the time of accident and a disability certificate was also tendered in evidence at the time of trial to assess the actual condition of the patient at the time of trial. The Tribunal found that the insured was suffering from a fracture of shaft of femur of both sides with slight stiffness of both knees qualifying a disability to be assessed at 20%. It was elicited in evidence that the injured had difficulty in sitting cross-legged and he could do masonry work only by standing and not sitting. The Tribunal provided for the entire medical expenses evidence through the bills at Rs.30,635/-, provided Rs.5,000/- towards dietary charges, Rs.5,000/- for transportation, Rs.5650/- towards attendant charges, besides assessing the loss of past earnings at Rs.9400/-. Damage for pain and suffering was quantified as Rs.17,500/- and Rs.96,000/- for loss on account of future earnings. Diminution of prospects of marriage was also quantified at Rs.30,000/-, although there was no particular evidence that he had any disability that could have rendered him incapable of normal matrimonial felicity. The assessment of Rs.30,000/- should more be seen as loss of amenity for life for stiffening of the knee that he was said to have and overall, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was assessed by the Tribunal as compensation, which, in my view, is appropriate and just FAO No.181 of 2009 -4- and would require no interference at the appellate state. 4. The cross appeal is consequently dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 27, 2010 Pankaj*