IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.911 of 2001 Date of decision: 21.07.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Gurdeep Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, and Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1 ---- 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 the award on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. At the trial, a local Commissioner had been appointed to go to the office of the licensing authority and collect evidence but the warrant was returned with inability expressed by the Commissioner that the original register was not available. The owner had himself produced a copy of the driving licence and this was accepted by the Tribunal. I do no think the insurer can make any better case for itself by pointing out that only a copy was available and the original was not produced. Unless the copies produced were shown to be fake in any way with reference to the FAO No.911 of 2001 - 2 - original register, the evidence produced by the driver could be accepted for strict rule of evidence may not be possible in proceeding before the MV Act. The liability cast on the insurer with right of indemnity to the insured are therefore be upheld. 2. The learned counsel also contends that against the claim of Rs.4 lakh, the Tribunal had even awarded an amount in excess of what was claimed and, therefore, the award is untenable. The power of the Tribunal to award just compensation may even at times exceed the amount claimed. In this case, the increase over what was claimed has been made on calculation taking the monthly income to be Rs.5,003/- as per the pay bill given to the deceased and adopting a multiplier of 11 to a person, who was aged 53 years. He has provided for a deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses and the extent of dependency has been taken at Rs.3,342/- per month. He has also provided among the conventional heads of claim for funeral expenses only. The award is sufficiently supported by application of judicial mind and I do not think that there is any error in awarding compensation larger than what is claimed. 3. The award is sustained in all aspects and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 21.07.2010 sanjeev