F.A.O.NO. 4115 OF 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 4115 OF 2009 Date of decision:19th August, 2010 United India Insurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Gurmeet Kaur and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Sham Lall Bhalla, Advocate. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal, having been permitted all defences under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), including both the question of of liability and quantum. 2. As regards the contention that the driver was not duly licenced, it was sought to be stated that the driver had a driving licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle issued on 29.08.1997 to 29.08.2003 which was subsequently renewed on 22.09.2004 for the further period of 5 years. The accident had taken place F.A.O.NO. 4115 OF 2009 2 admittedly, when the renewal of the licence of the appellant was inforce. The contention was that the driver was driving a truck which was heavy transport vehicle and the original licence has been granted only for Light Motor Vehicle. The licence which is produced before the Court has an endorsement that the driver had a transport vehicle licence. It is now contended with reference to the transport vehicle that it was not really in the nature of an endorsement and he did not show that the transport vehicle was a higher category of vehicle namely a heavy vehicle. Section 10 of the Act contemplates transport vehicle as a distinct category and the document produced before the Tribunal offered such evidence. Unless the Insurance Company had brought more details by summoning the records from the Licencing Authority that the driver did not have a valid driving licence for the particular category then it could not be stated that the insurer had discharged his burden of proof. If a driver was authorised to drive a transport vehicle and if it was to be contended that the driver did not have a heavy transport vehicle endorsement on the licence, in the absence of a clear evidence, I will still hold the insurer liable, having not discharged the burden in the manner required by law. 3. As regards the question of quantum, the deceased was a Chemical Examiner having a salary of Rs. 5,777/-. He was aged 24 years and the claimants were the parents. Applying decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, the F.A.O.NO. 4115 OF 2009 3 appropriate deduction shall be 50% and the Multiplier shall be 18%, the compensation given was Rs. 6,00,000/- which is less than what the formula in Sarla Verma's case(supra) would admit. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal by the insurer is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 19th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik