IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4507 of 2002 Date of decision:30.08.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Hawa Singh and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.4508 of 2002 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Sat Parkash and others ...Respondents III. FAO No.5169 of 2002 Sat Parkash ....Appellant versus Raj Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO Nos.4507 and 4508 of 2002 and for respondent No.3 in FAO No.5169 of 2002. Mr. D.R.Singla, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No.5169 of 2002 and for respondent No.1 in FAO No.4508 of 2002. ---- 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 ? ---- FAO No.4507 of 2002 - 2 - K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. All the three appeals which are connected, arise out of the same accident. Appeals in FAO Nos.4507 and 4508 of 2002 are at the instance of the insurer denying liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. A Local Commissioner had been appointed to examine the records of the licensing authority, who secured proof for the fact that the licence had not been issued in the name of the driver at all by the authority at Cuttack. The subsequent renewals however had been at Muzzafarpur, the Tribunal held that in view of the valid renewals, it was irrelevant that the original licence was fake. This aspect of the case has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Divinder Singh- (2001) 8 SCC 342 to hold the driver could only be taken as not duly licensed. The owner or the driver did not give any evidence to explain the fake character of the licence. The Insurance Company could therefore not be liable to indemnify the insurer and ought to have been provided with a right of recovery against the insured. The award of the Tribunal in so far as it makes the insurer liable to satisfy the claimants will subsist but it will be modified to provide for a right of recovery against the insured. 2. FAO No.5169 of 2002 is an appeal for enhancement of compensation for the injury suffered in the accident by the person named Sat Parkash. It was in evidence that the claimant had been extensively injured and he had been taking long spells of treatment at various hospitals. He had also undergone three surgeries and the doctor, who FAO No.4507 of 2002 - 3 - had examined, had also spoken to the fact that one more surgery will have to be performed in future. While taking on record the fact that the claimant had undergone treatment on various occasions as inpatient between the period from 08.02.1998 to 12.02.1998 at the Civil Hospital, Sonepat, later for a month and six days at the G.D. Sharma Hospital at Sonepat, yet again between the period from 11.06.1998 to 22.06.1998 and later at the G.B. Pant Hospital from 23.06.1998 to 22.07.1998; later he has again been admitted at G.B. Sharma Hospital on 03.03.1999 for a period on 15/16 days, evidence was led to the effect that the claimant had incurred expenses about the tune of about Rs.2 lakhs. 3. The claimant has suffered serious injuries that had punctured his intestine and caused him enormous pain and suffering. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering which I take to be correct. It has provided for Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses which it has again done with reference to the medical bills filed before the Court. The Tribunal however has not considered the fact that during long period of hospitalization running to nearly six months, he ought to have had some attendants on him and attendants' charges had not been provided. I would provide him @ Rs.2,000/- for six months, Rs.12,000/- towards attendant charges. Having regard to his injury in the intestine, he must have had special diet and I would allow for another Rs.15,000/- towards special diet. He has been admitted in four different hospitals and he must spent considerable amounts towards transportation charges also which I shall estimate to be an additional amount of Rs.10,000/-. Over and above all these claims, the claimant was an agriculturist, who FAO No.4507 of 2002 - 4 - had owned more than five acres of land but claimed that he was unable to do any work. Doctor had also given evidence to the effect that he will not be able to exert himself on account of injuries which were sustained. Having regard to the fact that no permanent disability is shown to have caused, I would take the fact that by his contribution of labour, he would have earned about Rs.4,000/- per month and if I should take his debility would have caused to 25% reduction of earning even temporarily for a period of 5 years, I would take that to mean a loss of about Rs.1, 000/- every month and for a period of 60 months, I would provide for an additional amount of Rs.60,000/-. For loss of amenities of life, I would provide for another Rs.5,000/-. In all, the total amount over what has been already awarded by the Tribunal shall be Rs.1,12,000/-. This additional amount shall bear interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of the payment. 4. All the appeals are allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.08.2010 sanjeev