IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.42-CII of 1994 in/and FAO No.431 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision:06.12.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Jasbir Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. G.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for Mr. Labh Singh.Bhangu, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 6. Mr.Ishwar Lal, Advocate, for respondents 7 to 9. ---- 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. A Clerk from the licensing authority was sought to be summoned but the Insurance Company is not in a position to say the status of service of notice on the witness. I do not think any purpose will be served to detain the case only for this purpose. 2. A plea is also taken by the Insurance Company that the vehicle had not been involved in the accident. I cannot accede to such a plea, for, the Tribunal had cogent evidence before it to find that the insured’s vehicle was involved in the accident. The Tribunal had characterized the evidence of RW1 as liar. The Tribunal took note of the Cross Objection No.42-CII of 1994 in/and FAO No.431 of 1994 (O&M) - 2 - fact that the vehicle had been seized immediately after the accident and the driver was also charged for the offence of rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal had a basis for coming to the conclusion regarding the involvement of the vehicle and I would make no interference as regards the same. 3. There is cross-appeal for enhancement also. The deceased was 45 years of age and he was running a dhaba, earning Rs.2,000/-. In the cross-appeal, it is contended that the extent of dependence to the family must have been taken at Rs.1,400/- and compensation so determined. The Tribunal had taken extent of dependence at Rs.1,000/- after taking the income to be Rs.1,500/-. The deceased was supporting a large family of widow and 5 children and the Tribunal had taken a deduction of 1/3rd for the personal expenses. I would retain the assessment of income as made by the Tribunal but would deduct Rs.250/- as going his own personal expenses and take the contribution to the family at Rs.1,250/-. The Tribunal had taken a multiplier of 14, which I will retain. The total loss due to extent of dependence shall be Rs.2,10,000/-. I will provide for an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium for the wife; Rs.2,500/- as loss of love and affection for each one of the minor children; Rs.2,500/- towards loss to estate and Rs.2,500/- for funeral expenses. The total amount shall be Rs.2,32,500/-. The amount in excess over what has been already awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. The amount shall be shared between all the claimants equally. The right of enforcement of the award shall obtain for the claimants Cross Objection No.42-CII of 1994 in/and FAO No.431 of 1994 (O&M) - 3 - against the Insurance Company. The issue regarding driving licence is considered in the succeeding paragraph. 4. The Insurance Company was disputing the driving licence and this would essentially be a matter of adjudication of dispute inter se between the insurer and the insured. The award will stand confirmed as regards the quantum and liability in the first place on the insurer and the finding regarding the validity of licence is set aside and remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal for an adjudication regarding the validity of the driving licence. The parties are at liberty to take steps for securing the evidence in support of the respective contentions. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. The ultimate finding by the Tribunal regarding the validity of the driving licence will determine the entitlement or otherwise of the insurer to recover the amount from the insured after satisfying the award. 5. The appeal is allowed and is remitted to the Court for disposal in accordance with law. 6. For appearance of parties before the Tribunal at Patiala on 12.01.2011. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 06.12.2010 sanjeev