F.A.O No.1796 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O No.1796 of 2000 Date of Decision. 29.10.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, 136 Feroz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through Shri R.C. Bansal, Deputy Manager ......Appellant Versus Sudarshan Kumar Jadika son of Sh. Bhajan Kumar Jaidka, H.No.36-E, Industrial Estate Bathinda and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate for Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate for the respondent-claimant. 2. FAO No.204 of 2001 Sudarshan Kumar Jadika son of Sh. Bhajan Kumar Jaidka, H.No.36-E, Industrial Estate Bathinda and others ......Appellant versus Salwinder Singh s/o Dayal Singh c/o The Fazilka Dabwali Transport Company (P) Ltd., Abohar (Driver of Bus No.PB-04-B-9888) and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate for Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the 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? -.- F.A.O No.1796 of 2000 -2- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeals in FAO Nos.1796 of 2000 and 204 of 2001 arise out of the same accident, the former is at the instance of the insurance company against the liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and the latter being an appeal filed by the claimants seeking for enhancement of the compensation awarded to him for injury sustained in the motor accident. 2. As regards the liability, the insurance company had appointed a local commissioner for making verification with reference to the driving licence on the particulars furnished by the driver himself. It transpired in evidence that the original licence was fake. However, the renewal had been made subsequently. The issue has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Davinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 698 that holds that even a valid renewal of a fake licence will have to be taken as only fake. There had been consequently a breach of terms of policy that would make the insurer liable to pay the compensation only to the claimant but will have a right of recovery against the owner-insured. The award of the Tribunal is under the circumstances, modified and the insurance company will be entitled to satisfy the award and recover the amount from the owner-insured. 3. FAO No.1796 of 2000 is allowed to the above extent. 4. In FAO No.205 of 2001 for the claim for injury sustained in the accident, the claimant had suffered a fracture in four places namely fracture disclocation of the hip, fracture of the wrist, fracture of the left fore-arm and fracture of the left humerus bone. F.A.O No.1796 of 2000 -3- He had incurred medical expenses for his treament that lasted for the period from 24.07.1996 to 6.8.1996 and from 16.08.1996 to 27.08.1996. The claimant had proved expenses incurred for the payment of bills through examining PW-7. The Tribunal, on an overall consideration of all documentary evidence placed on record that they had totalled to Rs.91,509/-. The bills had been proved only for Rs.78,470/- but the Tribunal took note of the fact that a person must have spent more and provided for a compensation of Rs.90,000/- on account of hospital charges. The argument of the learned counsel is that the medical expenses themselves work out to Rs.91,509/- and there was no justification for the Tribunal to reduce it to Rs.90,000/- and include the same as answering the claim also for transport expenses. There is no specific evidence relating to the transport expenses but taking note of the fact that patient was in the hospital for fairly a long period as adverted above, I would make an additional amount of Rs.8500/- as transport expenses to round off the claim including the transport expenses to Rs.1 lac. For pain and suffering for four fractures including a dislocation of the hip and fracture, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.10,000/-. For an injury of hip and his inability to walk with three other fractures on the left arm, I would provide for a compensation @Rs.7,500/- for every fracture and take the amount of compensation payable under the head to be Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- as determined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has assessed a loss of earning to Rs.2500/- per month and adopted a multiplier of 5 and taking the annual loss to Rs.1,50,000/-. In my view, for fracture of the arm where there has F.A.O No.1796 of 2000 -4- been a disability assessed at Rs.60%, ought not to have resulted in a loss of earning capacity to such an extent of 50%. The fracture is of the arm and of the hip. The percentage of loss of earning capacity even for an amputation of arm would only be about 50%. For fractures, which are mal-united or united after some time, I cannot take the loss of earning capacity at any rate in excess of over 20%. So reckoned, I would take the loss of earning capacity to have resulted in an extent of Rs.1,000/- and take the annual loss to Rs.12,000/-. Adopting a multiplier of 5, I would take the loss of earning to be Rs.60,000/-. I would provide for an additoinal compensation of for loss of amenities by the fracture of the hip and the fracture of of the arm even more than what is awarded towards pain and suffering at an additional sum of Rs.25,000/-. The total amount comes to Rs.2,15,000/-. The amount which is payable is even less what is already awarded by the Tribunal but still I will not make any modification in the award passed by the Tribunal. I maintain the award and dismiss the appeal for enhancement. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 29, 2010 Pankaj*