IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.33-CII of 1998 in/and FAO No.1868 of 1997 Date of decision:01.09.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Kusum Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate, for Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate, for the 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 Insurance Company is in appeal challenging liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. Before the Tribunal, the evidence adduced was a letter of communication from the Joint Transport Commissioner to the investigator of the Insurance Company to say that the driving licence said to have been issued against licence No.4023/H/87 had not been issued to Omkar Singh son of Shiv Lal in the year 1987. In this case, the driver's name was Omkar Singh and his father's name was Bhagat Singh. This letter, according to the Cross Objection No.33-CII of 1998 in/and FAO No.1868 of 1997 - 2 - Insurance Company, ought to have been accepted by the Tribunal. I am afraid, I cannot accede to a letter from the Transport Commissioner as affording irrefutable proof about the fake character of licence. At best the letter ought to have been the starting point for the insurer to deny a driving licence on some basis and ought to have taken steps to secure proof for the same by summoning the records from the licensing authority and examining anyone connected with the records. A letter to an investigator cannot constitute any evidence before the Tribunal and cannot lead to a finding that the insurer had discharged his burden of proof that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The liability cast on the insurer, under the circumstances, is justified. The appeal by the Insurance Company shall stand dismissed. 2. There is a cross objection filed at the instance of the legal representatives/claimants for the death of the person in the accident. The deceased was aged 24 years and the claimants were the young widow, a minor child and mother. Before the Tribunal, the evidence was that the deceased was doing a business in fodder by fodder cutting machine and document was filed to show that just before his death for one month, he had earned Rs.20,000/-. The Tribunal took a margin of 10% of the sale proceeds to constitute the income. The learned counsel contends that the Tribunal ought to have taken at least an amount of 1/3rd of the sale price to constitute a margin of income. At the relevant time if his income had been Rs.5,000/- per month as contended by him, he would have paid income tax for the case relating to the year 1994. Admittedly, he was not an income tax assessee. The only modification that is possible would be Cross Objection No.33-CII of 1998 in/and FAO No.1868 of 1997 - 3 - to take 15% as the margin of income and take the income to be Rs.3,000/- per month. 1/3rd ought to go for deduction for personal expenses and 2/3rd of the income must have been taken as the monthly contribution. The yearly dependence would work out to Rs.24,000/-, I would provide for a multiplier of 18 and the amount of compensation that would be payable would be Rs.4,32,000/-. There was a young widow and a minor child to whom appropriate sums for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection to the child ought to have been provided. Apart from that the conventional heads of claim for loss to estate and for funeral expenses be also to be provided. I will make an additional amount of Rs.18,000/- to round it off to Rs.4,50,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.2,82,000/- and the sum now determined shall be the excess which shall also bear interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the payment. The cross objection is allowed to the above extent and having regard to the fact that the accident had taken place in the year 1994, it is not necessary to keep the amount in deposit any longer. The amount may be ordered to be withdrawn by the respective claimants in the same proportion at which the Tribunal had provided for in its award. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 01.09.2010 sanjeev