IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2484 of 1998 Date of decision:30.08.2010 Bala Devi and another ....Appellants versus Raja Ram and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. S.K.Chouhan, Advocate, Advocate, for Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Kuldeep V. Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Pradeep Goyal, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. ---- 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 claimants have secured the award for death of Mahender Singh, who was said to be the driver of the truck which was involved in the accident with the insured's truck. The Tribunal held that the insured's truck to be responsible for the accident but exonerated the insurer on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. Among the grounds, it is contended that even if there had been a breach of terms of policy, the insurer ought to have been made liable to satisfy the claim and then for violation of terms of policy, the insurer could have been granted a right of recovery. According to the learned counsel, the FAO No.2484 of 1998 - 2 - complete exoneration of the insurer from a third party's claim was unjustified. 2. The issue of making the insurer liable even when there is a violation of terms of policy and when the driver did not have a valid driving licence was authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Shimla Versus Kamla,(2001) 4 SCC 342. Examining the whole gamut on case law on the subject relating to the liability of the insurer, the Court held in a subsequent decision in National Insurance Company Versus Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 that the law is firmly established that the insurer shall be liable even in a case where there had been a breach of terms of policy, so long as there had been a valid insurance for bodily injury or death covering the risk to a person, who was a third party to the vehicle which was responsible for the accident. While I confirm the finding that the driver did not a valid driving licence, I will make the insurer liable in the manner provided in the aforesaid two decisions. 3. The learned counsel also would urge that the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal was grossly inadequate. The deceased was 28 years of age and the claimants were the widow and minor son. The petitioner gave evidence that her husband used to give to her Rs.4,000/- for household expenses. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that he would have had an income of Rs.1,200/- per month and took the contribution to the family at Rs.900/- per month. Annual dependency was worked out at Rs.10,800/-. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 16 referring to a decision in FAO No.2484 of 1998 - 3 - Luchhman Singh Versus Gurmeet Kaur and others-AIR 1973 Punjab and Haryana 50. While retaining again the annual dependency in the manner determined by the Tribunal, I would increase the multiplier to what is provided under Schedule-II and take it to be 18. The amount of compensation will therefore be Rs.1,94,400/-. I would also provide to the wife a loss of consortium at Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection for the child, towards loss to estate and funeral expenses, I would provide for another Rs.5,000/-. In all, under the conventional heads of claim, I would provide for Rs.20,000/- and they would total to Rs.2,14,400/- which I round it off to Rs.2,14,500/-. The additional amount of over what has been determined by the Tribunal shall bear interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 4. The award of the Tribunal is modified providing for enhancement of compensation in the manner referred to above and making the insurer liable to make the payment to the claimants and have a right of recovery against the owner/insured. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.08.2010 sanjeev