IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.24-CII of 2001 in/and FAO No.37 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.09.2010 National Insurance Company ....Appellant versus Smt. Sarmila and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Ravinder Mohan Suri, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate, for the respondents/Cross Objectors. ---- 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. In this case, the Insurance Company is in appeal challenging liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. It reasoned that the insurer was bound to prove willful breach of terms of the policy and in that case, it was contended by the owner that the driver Nizar was employed by the insured Piare Lal on verifying with the licence produced before him. It bore the photograph, date, seal, signature, etc. of the licensing authority and the Court held on evidence on behalf of the insured that he had been led to belief that the licence was genuine and that he had committed no willful breach of Cross Objection No.24-CII of 2001 in/and FAO No.37 of 2001 (O&M) - 2 - terms of the policy. The bona fide belief of the owner that the driver had a valid driving licence and he had no reason to suspect the genuineness is enough for him to secure a right of indemnity in the manner laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Versus Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297. The award of the Tribunal casting the liability on the insurer is, therefore, confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. 2. There is a claim for enhancement of compensation. The evidence was that the deceased was a driver earning Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.50/- per day. The Tribunal took the income to be Rs.2,000/- per month and took the extent of dependency at Rs.16,000/-. I cannot find any mistake in the approach of the Tribunal, for, in the year 1997, if the Tribunal took the income to have been Rs.2,000/-, I have no better material to say that any other higher salary would have become possible for a driver. The Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 17. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was of 22 years and he left behind a young widow and a mother, I would adopt the multiplier of 18 in the manner provided under Schedule-II, having regard to the fact that the annual income was less than Rs.40,000/-. The amount of compensation will therefore be Rs.2,88,000/-. I would add the conventional heads of claim for loss of consortium to the wife at Rs.5,000/- and provide for another Rs.7,000/- towards loss to estate and funeral expenses. In all, the total amount that will become payable would be Rs.3 lakhs. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.2,72,000/-. The enhanced portion of the award will attract interest at 6%, which shall Cross Objection No.24-CII of 2001 in/and FAO No.37 of 2001 (O&M) - 3 - be paid from the date of the petition till the date of the payment, only to the widow of the deceased. The cross appeal for enhancement shall stand allowed to the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 20.09.2010 sanjeev