IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.820 of 2001(O&M) Date of decision: 26.11.2009 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.. -----Appellant Vs. Surjit Singh Sodhi and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. N.K. Khosla, Advocate for the appellant. ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against rejection of the appeal of the Insurance Company and acceptance of cross-objections of the claimants for interest from the date of award by learned Single Judge. 2. On 26.4.1989 at 4-45 P.M., Uggar Singh Sidhu, an employee in the Civil Veterinary Hospital, Patiala, was going on his bicycle from cattle breeding farm to his home. Truck No.CHW-3713 driven by Chand Singh came from the opposite side and hit Uggar Singh, on which he died. The truck was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The respondents heirs filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The claim was contested by denying negligence. The LPA No.820 of 2001 appellant contested the claim on the ground that the driver did not have valid driving licence. 3. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record held that death was caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. The age of the deceased was 42 years and his carry home salary was Rs.1881/- per month. His dependency was worked out at Rs.12,000/- per annum after deducting personal expenses. Multiplier of 16 was applied. Accordingly, the claimants were held to be entitled to a sum of Rs.192,000/- with interest from the date of the award. As regards driving licence, it was observed that the driver had valid licence from Delhi Office and merely because the appellant examined Clerk from Dehradun office who deposed that the licence recovered from the driver by police had not been issued from that office, was not enough to absolve the appellant. It was further held that the owner Surjit Singh, RW3 stated that he employed the driver after seeing and believing that he had valid driving licence. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd v. Kokilaben Chandravadan and others, (1987) 2 SCC 654. 4. The appellant filed appeal on which the learned Single Judge held that the owner having taken reasonable care for employing the driver and having seen the original licence, there was breach of conditions of the policy. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2 LPA No.820 of 2001 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that mere fact that there was evidence of the owner that he was satisfied that the licence was genuine, was not enough and there was breach of conditions of licence. 7. We are unable to accept the submission. Concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Tribunal and learned Single Judge that there was breach of conditions of policy, which is based on appreciation of evidence. We do not find any ground to disturb the said finding. No ground is made out to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 26, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3