IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.406 of 1999 Date of decision:20.07.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Rekha and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sukhjinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 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 challenges the award stating that the award which had been originally passed by the Tribunal on 13.11.1996 had been the subject of an appeal in FAO No.510 of 1997 before this Court. It was contended at that time that the insurer did not have adequate opportunity to show that the driving licence produced was a fake. This Court therefore passed an order setting aside the award and granting an opportunity to give evidence about the driving licence. When the matter went back before the Court, the evidence from the licensing authority was not favourable and therefore, the learned counsel FAO No.406 of 1999 - 2 - appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company made an endorsement that he was not pressing the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner. The Insurance Company consequently did not lead any evidence and did not avail to itself the opportunity which this Court had granted earlier. With no further evidence, the Tribunal reappraised the issue of compensation and enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,62,000/- to a compensation of Rs.1,82,000/-. This, according to the learned counsel, is unauthorized and it amounted to traversing beyond the scope of remand. 2. This Court, on remand, has been restricted only to the evidence relating to the liability to indemnify or not must be seen specifically expressed by the order. I do not find such expressions anywhere in the portion of the judgment culled out by the Tribunal. Unfortunately, for me, I do not have the entire text of the judgment in FAO No.510 of 1997. Still I would deem it my duty to see whether the Court had gone beyond the jurisdiction. This Court, while remitting the matter, had set aside the award and used the expression that “it set aside the award”. It does not say anywhere that it was set aside only as regards the issue of indemnity to the insured. The reappraisal of the Tribunal to grant higher compensation therefore cannot be faulted. 3. Even if such an exercise by the Tribunal was beyond the scope of remand, I do not see it to be an illegal exercise of power though it could be irregular. For what ultimately turned out was not an unreasonable increase for death of a person. It was originally Rs.1,68,000/- and that was raised by another Rs.28,000/- to grant a FAO No.406 of 1999 - 3 - compensation of Rs.1,82,000/-. It is a marginal increase and the Court probably was influenced by the general inflationary trend that made the Court to perceive a compensation for death of an individual would not merely be secured to Rs.1,68,000/- but an additional sum. As I have observed, the additional sum is a small amount worked out on a rational basis and the Insurance Company cannot feel itself aggrieved by this. The learned counsel points out that the Court has allowed interest at 15% which is excessive. The interest shall stand reduced to 9% from the date of institution of the petition till the realization of the amount. If the amount has already been realized by the claimants, it shall not be again recovered by the insurer. The appeal is dismissed except for modification as mentioned above. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 20.07.2010 sanjeev