IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.39-CII of 1998 in/and FAO No.164 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:21.09.2010 The National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Daljeet Singh and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.165 of 1998 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Baljit Kaur and others ...Respondents III. Cross Objection No.29-CII of 1998 in/and FAO No.166 of 1998 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Jaswant Kaur and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Ravinder Mohan Suri, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, 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 ? ---- FAO No.164 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeals by the Insurance Company are on the issue of quantum and liability. Applications are moved at the Appellate Court for permission under Section 170 to urge also on the issue of quantum. Such a permission cannot be granted if a case of collision was not established or apprehended at the trial by moving an application before the Tribunal. The appeal by the insurer on the issue of quantum is not maintainable in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Nicolletta Rohtagi and others- (2002-3) 132 PLR 621. 2. As regards the contention of the insurer that the driver did not have a valid driving licence, the learned counsel points out to a simple fact that the accident had taken place on 01.07.1994 and the driving licence produced by the driver showed that it was issued on 18.07.1994 and valid till 17.07.1997. The Tribunal had omitted to see that on the relevant date of the accident the driver did not have a valid driving licence at all. The breach of terms of policy on the insured is established when no evidence had been tendered by the insured. The insurer's liability would be therefore only to satisfy the claimants and will have a right of recovery from the insured/owner of the vehicle. The award in so far as it does not provide for a right of recovery is set aside and such a right is granted in all the appeals filed by the insurer. 3. As regards the cross appeal in FAO No.166 of 1990, which relates to the death of a person by name Ranjit Singh, the evidence was that he was a manufacturer of agriculture implements and an income tax FAO No.164 of 1998 (O&M) - 3 - payee. The income tax returns had not been filed in Court. The Tribunal took the income to be Rs.4,500/- and took the deduction of 1/3rd for his personal expenses and took the monthly dependency to be Rs.3,000/- per month. It adopted a multiplier of 12 and determined a compensation of Rs.4,39,000/-. It also provided for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. If any, the award is excessive than what is legally permissible. He was an income tax assessee and if his income was more than Rs.40,000/-, the multiplier could not have been as found in Schedule-II. For a person, aged 60 years, the appropriate multiplier would have been 8 or 9. The Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 12 and I do not think that there is a case made for enhancement. The cross appeal filed by the claimants seeking for enhancement is, therefore, dismissed. 4. The claim for enhancement by means of a cross appeal for injuries suffered is with reference to a person by name Daljeet Singh, who is the cross appellant in FAO No.165 of 1998. He had remained admitted for 18 days in the hospital and he claimed that he had spent about Rs.30,000/- to 35,000/- towards his medical expenses. He was operated for fracture of shaft femur right and knailing was done on 14.07.1994. There was no documentary evidence relating to the purchase of medicines. No evidence was tendered even about the actual disability. Dr. K.C.Modgil had deposed that he had carried out some surgery but did not refer to any permanent disability as having resulted by the injuries. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.35,000/- under all heads. To say the least, it is a poor method of assessment of compensation but I am FAO No.164 of 1998 (O&M) - 4 - unable to obtain any assistance from the counsel for the claimants to make any better assessment. There are no documents on the file for me to re-examine for a reappraisal. The award passed determining a compensation of Rs.35,000/- is sustained and the cross appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 21.09.2010 sanjeev