FAO No.439 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.439 of 1998 Date of Decision. 06.10.2010 Sangita wife of Naranjan Singh deceased son of Shri Mohinder Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Gurjeet Singh son of Shri Bakhatowar Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, Advocate for Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Tajinder Pal Singh, Advocate for insurance company. 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. This is an appeal for enhancement of the claim for compensation filed at the instance of the claimants. The petition was filed by a person claiming to be the widow and by parents of the deceased. Strangely, the Tribunal suo motu found a dispute amongst the claimants themselves and found that she had not proved the marriage and accepted the claim only for the parents. I cannot accept such a finding, for when the parents of the deceased had joined along with the person claiming herself to be the wife, to suspect status of such a person is wholly uncalled for. It is not a case where the parents are arrayed as respondents and they are FAO No.439 of 1998 -2- denying the marriage. If there had been no proof of marriage, it is only because we have not come through a legal regime where registration of marriage is compulsory. There have been attempts through some directives in judgment that the marriage registration must be made compulsory throughout India (Please see Enforcement and Implementation of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, In re: (2005) 4 SCC 565; Seema Vs. Ashwani Kumar (2008) 1 SCC 190; (2006) 2 SCC 578) but they have not come through legislative exercise, yet I, therefore, set aside the finding that the first claimant was not widow and that her marriage had not been proved. 2. The deceased was a driver and the evidence let in was that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal, however, took note of the fact that the owner of the vehicle himself had given evidence to the effect that he was paying Rs.1,000/- per month and therefore, took the same to be his income. The owner had been cited as a witness on the respondent's side and therefore, it became possible for him to deliberately state the salary to be less. I would reject his contention and take the income as what is statutorily provided as the notional income in Schedule II. Therefore, I would take the annual income of the deceased to be Rs.15000/- per month. As regards the apportionment of liability, the Tribunal found that no eye witness had been examined in the case. The respondents themselves gave no evidence through the driver of yet another vehicle and I find that the driver of the vehicle had not been served and he had been given up. Since the accident has taken place by a collision of two vehicles, it will only be appropriate that a FAO No.439 of 1998 -3- contributory negligence is attributed and the apportionment of liability as found by the Tribunal is maintained. 3. If the notional income is to be taken as Rs.15,000/-, I would provide for a 1/3rd deduction for his personal expenses and take the contribution to the family as Rs.10,000/-. I would adopt a multiplier of 18 for a person, who was aged 25 years and find the extent of dependence to be Rs.1,80,000/-. I would provide for Rs.9500/- towards the conventional heads of claim such as loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses. In all, the amount that will become payable would be Rs.1,89,500/-. Having regard to the fact that the liability is equally apportioned, 50% of the same will be Rs.94750/-. In this the widow shall be paid Rs.60,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.34,750/- shall be shared equally between parents. The amount over what has been granted by the Tribunal will bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 4. The insurance company had been absolved on the ground that the driver had been given up and therefore, it must be taken that the driver was driving without a driving licence. To state the least, it is absolutely a perverse reasoning. I have already observed that the driver is not a necessary party. If the driver had not been served, it was duty of the insurance company to call upon the owner to produce the driving licence in the manner provided under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The burden of proof is never on the claimant to prove that the driver had a driving licence. If that evidence was not produced by the insurance company that he did FAO No.439 of 1998 -4- not have a valid driving licence, the insurance company must have been made liable. The exoneration of liability made by the Tribunal is erroneous and the entire amount of assets determined shall be payable only by the insurance company. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 06, 2010 Pankaj*