IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.65-CII of 2000 in/and FAO No.1739 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision:11.05.2011 National Insurance Company ...Appellant versus Kartari and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sarbjeet Singh Hira, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2. None for respondents 3 to 5. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company challenging the issue of liability as determined by the Tribunal. There is also a cross objection for enhancement at the instance of the claimants. 2. As regards the liability, the Tribunal found that the licence had been originally issued by the Licensing Authority at Solan and it had been established that it was fake. However, there was a renewal of the licence by the Licensing Authority at Hoshiarpur which the Tribunal took as a fresh issue and found that since the licence issued by the Cross Objection No.65-CII of 2000 in/and FAO No.1739 of 2000 (O&M) - 2 - Licensing Authority at Hoshiarpur was genuine, it must be taken that the licence was genuine and made the Insurance Company liable. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company points out that it was not a fresh issue of licence by the Licensing Authority at Hoshiarpur and the copy of the licence marked as R1 showed that the original place of issue was the Licensing Authority at Solan and it was only a renewal which had been made before the authority at Hoshiarpur. The effect of a genuine renewal on a fake licence has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Versus Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 and it has been held that even a genuine renewal of a fake licence will only be treated as fake. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it cannot be stated that the driver was duly licensed. The Insurance Company would, therefore, become liable to the claimant for the claim and will have a right of recovery against the owner. 3. As regards the issue of enhancement of claim for compensation, the case arises out of death of a boy, aged 23 years, where claimants are the parents, who are 66 and 60 years of age. The Tribunal took the income to be Rs.2,000/-, made a deduction of 50% and adopted a multiplier of 6. The learned counsel states that the claimants were still alive and they have survived nearly 15 years after the accident. The accident has taken place subsequent to the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 and there exists a compensation regime under Section 163-A, Schedule-II. The power to apply Section 163-A even when the application is filed under Section 166 is dealt with Cross Objection No.65-CII of 2000 in/and FAO No.1739 of 2000 (O&M) - 3 - by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Dhanbai Kanji Gadhvi and others-2011 (2) SCC 240. I will, therefore, proceed to assess the compensation under Section 163-A as per the formula in Schedule-II. The income shall be taken as Rs.2,000/- and after making a deduction of 1/3rd and adopting a multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency will be 1,36,000/-. Adding the conventional heads of claims of Rs.4,500/- i.e. loss to estate and funeral expenses the total compensation payable will be Rs.1,40,500/-. The additional amount shall be shared equally between the parents and the liability shall be on the Insurance Company with a right of recovery as provided above. 4. The appeal and the cross objection are allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 11.05.2011 sanjeev