FAO No.639 of 1994 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.639 of 1994 (O&M) Date of Decision. 11.02.2011 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Patiala through its duly constituted attorney Sh. S.P. Gupta, Manager ......Appellant Versus Sant Ram son of Chuhar Ram and others .....Respondents 2. FAO No.640 of 1994 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Patiala through its duly constituted attorney Sh. S.P. Gupta, Manager ......Appellant Versus Baljinder Kaur wife of Hardip Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Narender Kumar Vashisth, Advocate for Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 to 7. 3. FAO No.800 of 1994 Baljinder Kaur wife of Hardip Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Baljinder Singh son of Nirbhai Singh Shah and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Narender Kumar Vashisth, Advocate for Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN FAO No.639 of 1994 (O&M) -2- 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. All the above appeals are connected. FAO Nos.639 and 640 of 1994 are at the instance of the insurance company on the issue of liability. FAO No.800 of 1994 relates to a claim for compensation for enhancement. 2. As regards the issue of liability, the insurance company secured interrogatories to be served on the licensing authority at Cuttack, which was the original Licensing Authority for the licence held by the driver. The answer to the interrogatories were that they had not issued any such driving licence in the name of the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. At the trial, the evidence was secured on the side of the respondent-driver from the Licensing Authority at Patiala, which had renewed the licence. The licencee clerk from Patiala had also given evidence to the effect that before issuing a renewal, they had sought for confirmation about the original issue of licence when they did not receive any objection from the original Licensing Authority within the specified time, they proceeded to issue a renewed licence. Although the authority is now settled to the effect that if the renewal licence of the original issue of licence was fake, the renewal would also be fake in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Davinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 698. I would not, however, hold this to be against the owner to deny to him the right of indemnity by the only fact that even the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National FAO No.639 of 1994 (O&M) -3- Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 279 held that if the owner had been under the bona fide belief that the licence was genuine then he cannot be denied the right of indemnity. In this case, the driver has placed evidence from the Licensing Authority at Patiala to say that they had sought for details from the original Licensing Authority about the original issue of licence and only after they found that they had not received any objection within the stipulated time, they proceeded to issue a renewed licence. The interrogatories also questioned the original Licensing Authority about the fact that where there had been any reference from the renewing authority about the original issue. The Licensing Authority at Cuttack was not able to however vouch for a statement that there had been no communication from Patiala as regards the original issue of licence. In the absence of a definite statement from the Licensing Authority at Cuttack that there had been no query from the renewal authority, I cannot hold that the owner insured had been guilty of any violation of terms of policy. The liability of the insurance company shall, therefore, be to indemnify the claims arising out of the accident. 3. The appeals by the insurer are consequently dismissed. 4. The appeal in FAO No.800 of 1994 relates to a claim for compensation by widow, minor son and parents for death of a driver, who was 25 years old. The claim by the family was that the deceased was a driver earning Rs.800/- and he was also attending to dairy farm for augmenting his income and he had an income of Rs.1500/- per month. The Tribunal took the income at Rs.800/-, adopted a multiplier of 24 and granted a compensation of Rs.1,53,600/-. I will make a marginal increase of taking the income at Rs.1200/- by taking Rs.400/- FAO No.639 of 1994 (O&M) -4- additionally as income that he would have earned through his dairy farming. I will also provide the conventional heads of claim for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss to estate and funeral expenses. The total amount of compensation is tabulated as below:- FATAL ACCIDENTS Age 25 years Occupation Driver/dairy farming Claimants Wife, minor son and parents Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Sl. No. Amount (Rs) Amount (Rs.) 1 Income 800 1200 2 Add, % of increase 30% / 50% 3 Average monthly income x 12 4 Deduction (1/2 , 1/3, 1/4, 1/5) 1/4th 5 Multiplicand 6400 900 6 Multiplier 24 18 7 Loss of dependence 1,94,400 8 Medical Expenses & Transportation -- -- 9 Loss of Consortium+ love and affection 7500 10 Loss to estate 11 Funeral expenses 2500 2000 Total 1,53,600 2,06,000 5. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The additional amount of compensation shall be shared between the wife and son only. 6. The appeal in FAO No.800 of 1994 is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 11, 2011 Pankaj*