IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.488 of 1999 Date of decision: 21.07.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Poonam Grover and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.1180 of 1999 Poonam Grover and another ....Appellants versus Narinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the National Insurance Company Limited. Mr.A.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the appellants in FAO No.1180 of 1999 . None for other respondents. ---- 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 subject of challenge in FAO No.488 of 1999 is on the issue of liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. Before the Tribunal, evidence was adduced through RW-1, Jiwan Kumar, a Clerk in the office of Registration and Licensing FAO No.488 of 1999 - 2 - Authority, Una. It bears out from his evidence that no licence was issued in the name of Narinder Singh on the day it is supposed to have been issued. However, there has been a renewal of licence from DTO, Hoshiarpur from 13.01.1994 to 12.01.1994. The Trial Court found that the original licence was fake but the renewal was valid and, therefore, the Insurance Company will be liable. This has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Versus Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 that lays down that a renewal of a fake licence is also fake. The Insurance Company could therefore be made liable only to satisfy the claim of the claimants and will have a right of recovery from the insured. The appeal by the Insurance Company is allowed to the above extent. 2. There is an appeal for enhancement. The deceased was said to be engaged in the business of selling readymade garments. Evidence had been let in by producing a rent deed executed in favour of the deceased for running the shop. The landlord's son was also examined to say that the deceased was paying Rs.800/- per month as rent. The Tribunal accepted the income of the deceased at Rs.2,400/-, provided for a deduction at 50% and adopted a multiplier of 10. The learned counsel states that this is grossly low and does not form either to the formula in schedule-II or to the manner of arriving at compensation as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another- (2009) 6 SCC 121. While I take the salary of the deceased in the manner as determined by the Tribunal, I would adopt schedule-II valuation as most beneficial to the claimants FAO No.488 of 1999 - 3 - and provide for a 1/3rd deduction and adopt a multiplier of 18. So reckoned, the amount that will become payable would be Rs.1,72,800/-. On this will carry an additional amount of Rs.2,500/- for loss to estate and another Rs.2,500/- for funeral expenses are provided. In all, the amount that will become payable would be Rs.1,77,800/- which I round off to Rs.1,77,500/-. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.1,44,000/-. The additional amount of Rs.33,500/- shall carry interest at 7.5% from the date of the award of the Tribunal till the date of the payment. In terms of the decision which I have come to in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, this amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company and recover from the insured. The appeal and the cross-appeal are disposed of as above. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 21.07.2010 sanjeev