FAO No.1619 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1619 of 2008 Date of Decision. 27.01.2011 National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.337-340, Sec.35-B, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory Sh. Raman Chhabra, Administrative Officer ......Appellant Versus Partap Singh son of Sh. Thandi Ram and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Navin Kapur, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 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. The appeal is filed at the instance of the insurance company, which had the benefit of defence under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the issue of quantum as well as on the liability. 2. As regards the contention regarding the quantum, the argument was that the claimants were the father of the deceased and the wife and children had been shown as respondents. According to him, the Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 16 and the father being the claimant, it should have been on a lower value. I will reject this contention since the wife and the children were also parties and the choice of multiplier will have to be only on the basis of all the persons, FAO No.1619 of 2008 -2- who are entitled to the amount and cannot suffer any reduction by the only fact that the wife and children were shown as respondents before the Tribunal. 3. It is contended again by the insurer that in the manner of apportionment, the father has been granted a larger share. It is essentially a matter of contest between the father as a claimant and the wife and children as respondents who were entitled to the amount and who had been also granted the entitlement. I cannot, therefore, entertain a plea by the insurer even as regards the apportionment. 4. As regards the liability, the contention of the insurer was that there had been a notice to produce the driving licence of the driver at the relevant time but during the trial on 12.10.2007, learned counsel appearing for the owner represented that he was not in a position to produce the same. During the course of trial, it was in evidence that the 2nd respondent Rajbir Singh before the Tribunal had transferred the vehicle to the 3rd respondent Bhajan Lal and the proof of such transfer had also been adduced through PW1/A and a copy of letter of transfer had also been sent to the transport authority. The 3rd respondent had not denied that the vehicle had not been purchased. On the other hand he was represented by the counsel before the Tribunal and he had not taken up any plea that the transfer against him was not true. 5. The insurance company had definitely adduced proof of the fact that there had been a violation of terms of policy by the 3rd respondent, who was the subsequent owner of the vehicle, by engaging a driver who did not have a valid driving licence. The right of recovery for the insurer shall, therefore, obtain against the 3rd respondent-Bhajan FAO No.1619 of 2008 -3- Lal before the Tribunal, who is arrayed as 4th respondent before this Court. 6. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the appeal is allowed granting to the insurer the right of recovery against the subsequent purchaser-Bhajan Lal. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 27, 2011 Pankaj*