IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.385 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision:10.11.2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Kuljeet Singh and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.171 of 1997 (O&M) Kuljeet Singh ....Appellant versus Parkash Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No.385 of 1997 and for respondent No.6 in FAO No.171 of 1997. Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Saquib Ali Khan, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No.171 of 1997. Mr. R.M. Suri, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 3 in FAO No.171 of 1997 and for respondents 2 to 4 in FAO No.385 of 1997. ---- 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. On 07.07.2010, I had permitted the Insurance Company to take steps to produce evidence from the licensing authority on the issue FAO No.385 of 1997 (O&M) - 2 - of driving licence, convinced as I was, that the insurer did not have sufficient opportunity to produce such evidence. I see from the records that the process has been issued. Learned senior counsel for the insurer states that the report of service or otherwise has not been received back. I do not want to hold back the disposal of the case only for consideration of whether the driving licence was genuine or not. I will set aside the finding regarding the driving licence made by the Tribunal and remit the matter to the Tribunal at Hisar for an adjudication in accordance with law on the issue of whether the driver involved in the accident had at the relevant time a valid and effective licence or not. Needless to state that this adjudication is only to resolve the controversy between the insurer and the insured and the liability of the insurer to satisfy the claimants as found by the Tribunal already stands confirmed. The issue for enhancement of the award is taken up independently in the succeeding para. 2. For appearance of parties before the Tribunal at Hisar on 16.12.2010. 3. There is a claim for enhancement by the claimant, who had, for an amputation of his leg, been awarded Rs.1,25,000/-. In the manner of computation, the Tribunal has provided for Rs.72,000/- for permanent disability, Rs.8,000/- for loss of income, Rs.25,000/- for medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the claimant is that the assessment of compensation for loss of income at Rs.8,000/- is grossly low. The medical evidence adduced through the doctor and who has spoken with FAO No.385 of 1997 (O&M) - 3 - reference to the disability certificate is that he had suffered 55% functional disability. The Workmen's Compensation Act would provide for loss of earning capacity to the tune of 50% in a case where the amputation is below knee. I will adopt the same. He was said to be a vegetable vendor and gave evidence to the effect that he was used to be earning Rs.4,000/- per month. I will take the income to be Rs.15,000/- per year. In the absence of any tangible evidence and take for loss of earning capacity which has resulted at Rs.7,500/- per year, I will adopt the multiplier of 18 for a person, who was aged 26 years and take the loss of earning at Rs.1,35,000/- instead of Rs.8,000/- as provided by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would point out that the Tribunal has provided for Rs.72,000/- for permanent disability and that must be understood as factoring the issue of future loss of earning as well. I find no basis for taking Rs.72,000/- as resulting from permanent disability, for, a functional disability will surely impact the amenities of life and cause great inconvenience to carry through his handicap for the entire length of his life. He was still a young man of 26 years and I would take the loss towards disability at Rs.50,000/-. I will retain the compensation arrived for medical expenses at Rs.25,000/- and also retain the compensation fixed by the Tribunal for pain and suffering at Rs.20,000/-. Learned senior counsel for the claimant would contend that there is evidence to the effect that the claimant would require future operation also. No evidence was elicited however as to what would be the actual expenses that may be necessary and I will make an estimation that it would have cost another Rs.5,000/-. I will add, therefore, another FAO No.385 of 1997 (O&M) - 4 - Rs.5,000/- for the same. In all, the amount of compensation would be Rs.2,35,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,25,000/- and the amount determined in excess shall also attract interest at 6% from the date of the petition till date of payment. The appeal by the claimant shall stand allowed to the above extent and this liability shall be initially cast on the insurer and the ultimate decision in the subject matter of appeal filed by the Insurance Company as regards the validity of the driving licence will determine the issue of whether the Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the same against the insured or not. The Tribunal has already apportioned the liability on both the Insurance Companies equally. While the liability of the National Insurance Company for 50% of the entire award stands fully confirmed, the nature of how the liability of the New India Assurance Company-appellant will have to be worked out will depend on the finding after remand. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.11.2010 sanjeev