FAO No. 3220 of 2009 and 1 FAO No. 2099 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3220 of 2010 Date of decision February 15, 2011 Data Ram ....... Appellant Versus Jatinder Kumar and others ........Respondents FAO No. 2099 of 2010 Data Ram ....... Appellant Versus Jatinder Kumar and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for respondent No.2. None for respondent Nos.3 to 6. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. In a fire accident at the Record Section of Civil Revision/FAO Branch of this Court on 30.1.2011, several files were burnt. 2. The Registry has reported that the file is not available and it is likely that the papers connected with the case have been FAO No. 3220 of 2009 and 2 FAO No. 2099 of 2010 consumed in fire. Learned counsel for the appellant has furnished copy of all the relevant papers connected with the case. The papers submitted shall substitute the papers that are unavailable and shall constitute for all practical purposes as the records of the Court. Papers are duly reconstructed in the above fashion. 3. Both the appeals are connected and arise out of the same accident. FAO No. 3220 of 2010 is at the instance of the owner and driver against whom recovery rights had been awarded to the insurer on the ground that driver did not have a valid driving license. He was driving a pick up van and admittedly a transport vehicle and that he had Heavy Motor Vehicle license but he was driving a category of Light Motor Vehicle. The contention was that in appeal the appellant had filed a document to show that he had a Light Motor Vehicle endorsement at the relevant time of the accident. The document Ex. A-1 shows that a license had been issued for a Light Motor Vehicle-NT meaning thereby that it was a non-transport category. The transport vehicle endorsement is essential in the terms of Section 3. A person that has merely Light Motor Vehicle license cannot be taken to be duly licensed to secure a right of indemnity from the insurer. This position of law is well laid down by the Hon'ble Supureme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol 2009 11 SCC 356 and to earlier decision of the Supreme Court on the same point namely National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal 2008 ACJ 267 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chelabarthama JT 2007 4 SC 519. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would state that the right of indemnity must be provided in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co v Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297. The contention is that the owner cannot FAO No. 3220 of 2009 and 3 FAO No. 2099 of 2010 be said to have committed a fault by appointing a driver who did not have a valid transport vehicle license. The judgment in Swaran Singh's case (supra) does not in any way support the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant. The appeal is dismissed. The right of recovery awarded to the insurer is perfectly justified. 5. FAO No. 2099 of 2010 is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a person who was said to be 30 years of age. His wife had already pre-deceased and the claimants were parents who were 70 years of age, two minor children aged 7 and 2. The Tribunal took that there was evidence before the Tribunal that he was earning `5,000/- and while determining compensation the Tribunal provided for 1/3rd deduction and adopted a multiplier of 8 stating only the age of the parents as relevant. The claimants are justified in stating that the compensation awarded was low and the choice of multiplier without considering the age of children who had a long number of years to gain support from estate. It is pointed out that the mother was shown to be more than 70 years of age and she could not have a son who was 30 years old. I am not prepared to make any inference as regards the age especially when it was not a point in issue or a matter in dispute before the Tribunal. The averment in the petition was that he was aged 30 years and the postmortem certificate showed even a lesser age at 28. I will take the age as mentioned in the petition as the basis for choice of multiplier. The parents were old and I will take both of them as dependent and so also the children. I will take the extent of dependency at `3,750/- and adopt a multiplier of 17. The loss of dependency at `7,65,000/-. I will provide for loss of love and affection for each of the minor children at `5,000/- and make other modification to include `5,000/- and `2500/- towards loss to estate and funeral expenses. The over all compensation will be FAO No. 3220 of 2009 and 4 FAO No. 2099 of 2010 `7,82,500/-. The amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The compensation shall be payable only to the children. The entire amount of compensation that is to be paid to the children shall remain in deposit during the period of minority but the parents of the deceased are entitled to withdraw the entire sum awarded to them without any reservation for deposit. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 15, 2011 archana