F.A.O.NO. 786 OF 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 786 OF 1997 and Cross Objection No. 86-CII of 1997 Date of decision:20th July, 2010 United India Insurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Kanwaljit Singh and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for the appellant. None 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 on the quantum filed by the Insurance Company and the application to challenge the quantum moved for the first time only before the High Court. Right of defence on all grounds shall be taken for the circumstances mentioned under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal itself, which cannot avail to the insurer to plead that it should have right to defend also on the question of quantum at the appellate stage. The claim as regards the quantum cannot therefore be urged by the insurer. 2. The Insurance Company has also taken up the issue of F.A.O.NO. 786 OF 1997 2 liability on the ground that the driving licence was not genuine and had produced the surveyors report for such a contention. No attempt has been made by the insurer to produce the register or secure the evidence of any witness from the office of the licencing authority. The burden of proof on the insurer cannot be said to be discharged by mere production of its own surveyors report. The appeal is dismissed. 3. There is cross objection for enhancement. The deceased was said to be teacher with B.SC and B.ED qualification. Her salary certificate showed that she was drawing Rs. 3,420/-. The claimants were husband and minor children. The Tribunal took the contribution to the family Rs.2,500/- and adopted a multiplier of 16 to provide for a compensation of Rs. 4,80,000/-. I am of the view that the compensation awarded is just and would not require any modification. The cross objection is therefore, dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 20th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik