IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.55-CII of 2001 in/and FAO No.1194 of 2000 Date of decision:29.07.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Manoj and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ravinder Mohan Suri, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Amrita Nagpal, Advocate, for Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for respondent No.1/Cross objector. ---- 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. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the liability cast on it, in spite of the fact that it adduced the evidence through a Clerk from the Transport Department, Mall Road, Delhi that the particular licence No.C-9390133 had been issued in the name of a person by name Ramji Singh and had not been issued in the name of Hanif, who was alleged to be the driver on that particular date. It was elicited in the cross-examination that there were nine licensing authorities in Delhi and the document did not contain any indication that the licensing authority was of Mall Road. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company states with reference to Rule 23, the State Register in the FAO No.1194 of 2000 (O&M) - 2 - Central Motor Vehicles Rules of 1989, shall have a serial number and if a particular serial number is found in one office, it could not have been in any other office of the licensing authority. Therefore, if an evidence had been given by the Mall Road authority that the particular licence number was in their office but had been issued to another person that was conclusive that the licence was fake. I find that Rule 23 contemplates issue of licence in form 10, which reads thus: 23. State Register of driving licence.--(1) Each State Government shall maintain a State Register of driving licences in respect of driving licences issued and renewed by the licensing authorities in the State in Form 10. (2) Each State Government shall send to the Director (Transport Research), Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi, a printed copy of the register referred to in sub-rule (1). Form 10 contains the following details:- “STATE REGISTER OF DRIVING LICENCE 1. (a) Driving licence number and date of initial issue : ................. (b) Licensing authority which issued the licence : ................... (c ) Name and designation of the officer who has taken the driving test and the date of passing the test by the holder of the licence: ........................... 2. Name, address and other particulars of the holder of the driving licence: (a) Name of the holder (with guardian's name, if minor) : .......................... (b) Date of birth : ............................. (c ) Educational Qualifications : ............................... (d) Permanent address :........................................... (e) Temporary address/official address (if any): .... (f) Subsequent changes of address : ...................... (g) Class and types of vehicles for which licence is given : ............................. FAO No.1194 of 2000 (O&M) - 3 - (h) Addition of vehicles (if any) with dates,:................. (i) Date of expiry of the licence and further renewal (with details of licensing authority which renewed the licence). : .............................. (j) Details of disqualifications, fine, cancellation, etc. in relation to the holder of the driving licence :.............................” Form 7 refers to the form of driving licence which is reproduced as under:- “FORM FOR DRIVING LICENCE (LAMINATED/ SMART CARD TYPE) VISUAL INSPECTION ZONE Driving Licence No......................... Date of issue.................................... Valid till (Non Transport)...............Valid till (transport)....... Name................(Surname)....................(given name)............ (middle name) Son/Daughter/Wife of................(Surname)........................... (give name) ........................(middle name) Address (current).............................................. Citizenship ....................................................... Date of birth..................(date)........(month)..............(year) Authorisation to drive the following vehicle class throughout India:- (i) Class of vehicle................................ (ii) Issue date (dd-mm-yyyy)............... Badge Number................................................. Blood Group and Rh factor of the driver............................ Specimen Signature/thumb impression of the licence holder.............................. Signature of the Issuing Authority................................... Identification of Issuing Authority.................................” 3. I find from the copy of the driving licence produced before this Court that it contains every detail of what is required under Form 7. If the witness had the copy of the register with him, it should have been possible for him to say that the particular number was the subject of issue from his office only. In the evidence what has been elicited is as Photograph FAO No.1194 of 2000 (O&M) -4 - follows: “No authority is mentioned in the driving licence. There is no indication of licensing authority of Malroad in the driving licence......” 4. The answers elicited in the cross-examination are meaningless for form No.7 does not require any more than a signatory of the licensing authority. It shall not contain the details of the licensing authority who it had issued. The same will be available only in Form 10. Therefore, if the witness from the licensing authority at Mall Road produces the register with reference to the particular licence number, and if it is seen that it had not been issued in the name of the driver, unless it had been elicited that the licensing authority was not competent to issue the licence for that particular serial number, then it must be only taken that the onus of proof was properly discharged by bringing the register and giving evidence with reference to the particular licence number. 5. The reasoning of the Tribunal, under the circumstances, finding that the Insurance Company had not established his defence, is erroneous and is set aside. The liability to satisfy the claimants shall still subsist and it will have only a right of recovery against the insured. The appeal is allowed. 6. There is a claim for enhancement of compensation by persons, who has suffered serious injuries. His injuries have been supported through medical evidence by doctors, who have given evidence to the effect that he had undergone seven operations at various times between 08.03.1996 to 13.07.1996. The Additional Professor, Orthopedics, AIIMS, Delhi, Dr.J. Maheshwari (PW6) was also examined FAO No.1194 of 2000 (O&M) - 5 - when she has narrated the incidents of care which she had given to him. The witness himself had spoken about his injuries and the disability that he has suffered. They are as follows:- i) Fracture on right leg; ii) Fracture on left leg; iii) Multiple injuries on thigh; iv) Skin grafting was done; v) Iron rods were inserted in the legs; vi) Got infection in his wounds; ;and vii) Eight operations were done. And speaks about the present position, which is as follows: i) He is not in a position to walk and sit; ii) He was not in a position to attend his daily routine; and iii) His marriage prospects have been diminished.” 7. Learned counsel would state that he was aged 21 years and he was a skilled worker in a stone crusher unit. The evidence had been brought to the effect that the expenses for surgery and medicines would be assessed at Rs.5,000/- for every operation. For seven operations, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.5,000/- when it should have been taken as Rs.35,000/-. I accede to such a claim and would provide for additional amount of Rs.30,000/- for the medical expenses for prolonged hospitalization of merely about six months. The Court has ascertained the pain and sufferings to be Rs.35,000/-. The assessment of Rs.35,000/- for pain and sufferings, in my view, is appropriate and just. The attendant charges for a person, who had been in the hospital for six months and transport charges have been awarded at Rs.4,800/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively. The attendant charges have been worked out at FAO No.1194 of 2000 (O&M) - 6 - the rate of Rs.800/- per month. The counsel seeks for increase by another Rs.400/-, which I accede to in the manner in which it is urged for six months an additional amount of Rs.2,400/- shall be given. For a permanent disability, the Court has assessed the damage to be Rs.45,000/- and the learned counsel refers to a decision of this Court in Ram Kiran Goyal Versus Sub Divisional Engineer, Mechanical and others-2008(2) RCR (Civil) 103, that for every percentage of disability, the compensation should be at least Rs.2,000/-. I am bound by the decision of the Division Bench and, would therefore allow for an additional Rs.45,000/- under the head of permanent disability. The person claims that he is unable to walk, sit and carry on his work. It is bound to fetter his earning capacity and, in my view, that is in independent head of claim and for a person, who was working as a stone crusher and who shall have requirement of having to do hard work cannot any longer do, I allow for another Rs.20,000/-. In all, the additional sum shall be Rs.97,400/- (Rs.30,000 + 2,400 + 45,000 + 20,000). The amount in excess of what was awarded shall be paid by the Insurance Company and shall have a right of recovery against the insured. The additional amount shall also bear interest at 6% from the date of the award of the Tribunal till the date of payment. The cross- appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 29.07.2010 sanjeev