IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.5-CII of 2000 in/and FAO No.3312 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision:30.09.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Ram Piari and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- Present: Mr. Suman Jain Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Arun Jindal, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 3. ----- 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 appeal is by the Insurance Company on the issue of driving licence. The Tribunal found that the original licence was fake but it observed that the renewal was genuine and, therefore, held that the licence must be taken as genuine. This has come by a different dispensation in a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Versus Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 that held if either the original or a renewal is fake, then the licence must be taken as fake. There was no other contra evidence given by the driver or the owner. The Insurance Company shall, therefore, be liable only to satisfy the claim and to recover the same against the insured. Cross Objection No.5-CII of 2000 in/and FAO No.3312 of 1999 (O&M) 2. There is a cross objection for enhancement at the instance of the claimants. The deceased was Watchman, aged 50 years, and he was said to have received Rs.1,000/- as salary. Evidence was given also to the effect that he used to purchase papers and made envelopes and earned an additional amount of Rs.1,500/-. The Tribunal provided for additional earning of Rs.500/-. In the absence of any documentary proof, I would take the total income at Rs.1,500/-, provide for a deduction of 1/3rd and take the monthly contribution to the family at Rs.1,000/-. The Tribunal took the monthly dependency at Rs.800/-. The Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 10 and I would take a multiplier of 13 and take the amount of dependency at Rs.1,56,000/-. I will add Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife and provide for a like sum for love and affection to the minor child. I will add again Rs.2,500/- for funeral expenses and another Rs.2,500/- for loss to estate. Before the Tribunal, evidence was produced to show that he had incurred medical expenses for a period of six days and the bills were produced from Ex.P2 to P8. I will add another Rs.4,000/- towards medical expenses. In all, the total amount of compensation that will become payable would be Rs.1,75,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1 lakh. The amount in excess shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The amount will be distributed in the same proportion in which the Tribunal has found and having regard to the fact that the accident has taken place more than 13 years back, the whole amount may be ordered to be released to the claimants. 3. The appeal by the insurer is allowed to provide for a right of Cross Objection No.5-CII of 2000 in/and FAO No.3312 of 1999 (O&M) - 3 - recovery against the insured and the cross objection by the claimants shall stand allowed partly to provide for the increase in the manner referred to above. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.09.2010 sanjeev