FAO No. 4174 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4174 of 2008 Decided on : 01-12-2008 National Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Appellant VERSUS Ramu and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner MAHESH GROVER, J Challenge made in this appeal is that the compensation awarded to the respondents is on the higher side. The respondent claimant has been granted following compensation:- Sr. No. Head Amount 1. Compensation for pain and sufferings 3,00,000/- 2. Reimbursement of medical bills 2,09,896/- 3. Compensation for special diet 20,000/- 4. Compensation for transportation charges 10,000/- 5. Compensation for loss of income due to 100% disability 2,00,000/- 6. Compensation for loss of enjoyment of amenities of life due to 100% disability 1,00,000/- 7. Compensation for expenses on attendance 30,000/- 8. Future treatment 50,000/- _________ Total 9,19,896/- _________ It has come on record that there was 100% disability and the respondent-claimant was unable to move. Having regard to the fact that the FAO No. 4174 of 2008 2 respondent claimant is disabled to the extent of 100%, compensation cannot be termed to be excessive. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the brother of the claimant had appeared and the claimant himself did not appear. Considering the fact that claimant is 100% disable, this factor cannot be held against him. Lastly, it was contended that driving licence was not produced. The Tribunal while dealing with the issue observed as follows:- “In this case, the driver has been proceeded against ex parte. Therefore, his driving licence is not placed on the file. No effort was made by the insurance company to summon the driver for the purpose of procuring his driving licence. It has been vehemently argued that in the trial of criminal case which is based upon the same accident, the driver has not placed his driving licence on that file. But it cannot be presumed that driver is not having a driving licence. In fact, no evidence has been led by the respondent insurer to establish that Sanjeev Kumar driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. As such, the insurer has failed to establish that respondent-driver was not holding valid driving licence.” The onus to prove the validity of the driving licence lies heavily on the Insurance Company. Since they have failed to discharge the onus, the Tribunal has rightly determined the issue while observing as abovje. Thus, there is no infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal. Dismissed. December 1, 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge