IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5200 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision:16.12.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Harbans Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ravinder Mohan Suri, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 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 appeal is by the Insurance Company on the issue of liability as well as on quantum. The Insurance Company had sought permission under Section 170 which permission was refused. The collusion attributed to the owner was that she was related to the owner of the vehicle. I would take that to be a sufficient justification for raising a presumption in favour of the insurer and allow the Insurance Company to join issues on the question of quantum as well. 2. As regards the liability, I have seen from the policy that it was a comprehensive insurance cover that provides for payment of not merely the basic premium but also additional payments made for damage to property. The limit of liability as set forth in the policy is in respect of FAO No.5200 of 2002 (O&M) - 2 - anyone accident as per Motor Vehicles Act and in respect of any claim or series of claims arising out of an event resulting in damage to property. A comprehensive insurance cover, in terms of the circular of the Tariff Committee, should be taken to cover the risk of pillion rider also. I would, therefore, hold that the Insurance Company was liable for satisfying the claim arising out the accident. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.50,000/- as an overall consideration of damages for a fracture in the wrist without subjecting it to scrutiny in the manner laid down under the Act and in the light of parameters necessary to be considered. There was evidence of a doctor, who had stated that by the fracture of ulna, there had been stiffness of her hand. The claimant did not subject herself to any test by medical board and it is not very clear whether the disability suffered was permanent or not. However, it is seen from the evidence of the doctor that he had assessed the disability at 10%. He had also given evidence to the effect that she would have spent about Rs.20,000 to 25,000/- towards medical expenses. The medical bills filed before the Tribunal showed an amount of Rs.16,505/- as having been spent. In view of the doctor's evidence and the documentary evidence produced, I would take the medical expenses to be Rs.25,000/-. Pain and suffering for a fracture in a hand, I would provide for Rs.7,500/- and for the disability caused by a stiffness of wrist, I would provide for a further sum of Rs.5,000/-. In all, the total amount of compensation will be Rs.37,500/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 3. This Court at the time of admitting the appeal has directed the Insurance Company to deposit the money and has permitted the FAO No.5200 of 2002 (O&M) - 3 - claimant to withdraw on furnishing security. If the amount has already been recovered in full, it shall be futile to allow for enforcement of security for recovery of balance. However, I order that no recovery shall be made by the insurer, but if the amount recovered falls short to the amount now determined, it shall stay restricted only to the said amount. 4. The appeal of the Insurance Company is, therefore, allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 16.12.2010 sanjeev