FAO No.3292 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3292 of 2002 Date of Decision. 14.10.2010 National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office No.2, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through Sh. L.P. Arora, Asstt. Admn. Officer ......Appellant Versus Poonam (minor) d/o Sh. Vedpal and others ......Respondents 2. C.R.No.3781 of 2002 National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office No.2, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through Sh. L.P. Arora, Asstt. Admn. Officer ......Appellant Versus Shakuntla Devi w/o Dhoop Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the respondents-claimants. 3. FAO No.3528 of 2002 Poonam (minor) daughter of Sh. Vedpal son of Kaptan Singh through her father Sh. Vedpal ......Appellant Versus Balla son of Shri Ram r/o village Mori, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the insurance company. FAO No.3292 of 2002 -2- 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. The insurance company is challenging the liability on the ground that the vehicle had been insured as a commercial vehicle for transport of goods. The witness from the licencing authority also produced evidence to the effect that the permit had been taken only for carriage of goods. The claims emanated from persons, who suffered through an accident making the use of the vehicle as transport of school children. The Tribual reasoned that the policy had been issued only after inspection of the vehicle and therefore, the insurance company cannot deny such liability. There cannot be an estoppel against statute. If the policy of insurance showed that it was a goods carriage and the permit had also been issued only as a goods carriage then transport of human beings in such a vehicle would constitute a violation of the terms of permit and also the purpose for which the permit is issued. If the purpose was transportation of goods but it was used for transportation of children, there had been a violation of terms of policy and the insurance company cannot be made liable. The breach is so fundamental that it cannot avail even to the claimants to make the insurer liable since in the ultimate analysis it would amount to allowing passengers to be travelling in a goods carriage and there is no requirement to have such a vehicle compulsorily insured for risk to passengers. FAO No.3292 of 2002 -3- 2. All this has to be only a matter of acadmic exercise since during the pendency of appeal, the claimants had the benefit of securing the enforcement of the award against the insurance company. In the view that I have taken that the insurer cannot be made liable at all, now the entitlement of the insurer shall be only to secure the amount from the insured and not from the claimants. The appeal and the civil revision are disposed of on the above terms. 3. There is an appeal in FAO No.3528 of 2002 for enhancement of claim for compensation for amputation suffered by a child, who was aged 6 years to whom the Tribunal had awarded Rs.5 lacs as compensation. The amputation of hand would mean 90% of loss of earning capacity and even if the notional income as provided in Schedule II had to be applied and appropriate multiplier suitable to a child at 15 is adopted, it would be seen that the compensation is still in excess of what the law otherwise permits. I do not want, however, to make any modification with reference to the quantum by slicing it down, for the loss of hand for a girl child is truly a major disability. The compensation of Rs.5 lacs, in my view, is appropriate and just and I would not find any reason to enhance the same. 4. The appeal for enhancement is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 14, 2010 Pankaj*