F.A.O.NO. 168 OF 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 168 OF 2002 Date of decision: 6th July, 2010 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Amarjit Singh and others .......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the driver that drove the truck the offending vehicle did not have transport vehicle endorsement as required under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and it was evident that the license was only for the Light Motor Vehicle. The Tribunal had assumed that the Light Motor Vehicle to be sufficient to load only 7500 kilograms and it is revealed that the unladen weight of the transport vehicle was 6830 kilograms. This cannot satisfy the definition of a license under Section 149 clause (2). The Insurance Company shall bear all the responsibility of satisfying the claim and there having been F.A.O.NO. 168 OF 2002 2 a proof of violation of terms of the policy of the owner entrusting the vehicle. The person who did not have an effective driving license the insurer will have a right of recovery in the manner contemplated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla, (2001) 4 SCC 342. 2. The cross appeal by the claimants is for enhancement of compensation. The claim is by parents and brothers for death of 21 years old bachelor. The evidence was that he was running a Dhaba and also had established STD Booth on the Dhaba. PW- 3 gave evidence that he owned a spare part shop at Bhartgarh and was also allotted STD at Bhartgarh. He had handed it over to the deceased for running the same. There cannot be such a transfer of license and that would be even illegal. The evidence was that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- but the net income was taken to be Rs. 3,000/-. The MACT provided for personal expenses to the extent of Rs. 1/3rd and took the dependence of the family at Rs. 2,000/-. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 12 and determined an amount of lack in Rs. 1,44,000/- as going towards compensation payable and added Rs. 6,000/- towards funeral expenses. 3. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of love and affection for parents which shall be taken Rs. 5,000/- per month for each one of the parents. There is also no provision for loss to the estate which I provide at Rs. 2,500/-. The award already granted shall bear additional burden to the insured and the insurer to the tune of Rs. 12,500/-, with interest at 9% as F.A.O.NO. 168 OF 2002 3 awarded by the Tribunal. This additional amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company with right of recovery against the insurer. The cross appeal is allowed to the above extent only. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 6th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik