FAO No.8 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH X Obj. No.20-CII of 1998 in/and FAO No.8 of 1998 Date of Decision. 30.08.2010 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through Shri Amandeep Singh, Admn. Officer its duly constituted attorney ......Appellant Versus Paramjit Kaur widow of Mohan Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The insurance company is on appeal challenging the liability cast on it on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. A notice to produce the licence was issued, which was not complied with. The Tribunal held that the driver did not have a valid driving licence but still found the insurer liable to pay the amount to the claimants. While determining the liability for the insurer to make the payment to the claimants, it ought to have also provided for a right of recovery since even as per the finding of the Tribunal, the insured had committed a breach of terms of the policy by allowing the driver to drive the vehicle, who was not duly FAO No.8 of 1998 -2- licenced. 2. The award of the Tribunal under the circumstances stands modified to provide for a right of recovery against the insured owner after satisfying the claim of the claimants. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. 3. There is also a cross appeal for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal has found that the deceased was aged 40 years and he was a driver earning Rs.1800/- per month. The Tribunal while taking the income to be Rs.1800/- per month, took the contribution to the family as Rs.1200/- per month and adopted a multiplier of 12. I am of the view that appropriate multiplier must have been 15 and the compensation payable would have been Rs.2,16,000/- with an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- provided for towards conventional heads. The amount which shall become payable, would be Rs.2,26,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,72,800/-. 4. The award shall stand increased as above and the amount in excess shall attract interest @6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The insurer shall be liable to pay the excess amount and will have a right of recovery in the manner provided above. The cross appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 30, 2010 Pankaj*