F.A.O.NO. 196 OF 1997 and 1 Cross Objection No. 24-CII of 1998 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 196 OF 1997 and Cross Objection No. 24-CII of 1998 Date of decision:23rd September, 2010 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Shri S.M.Garg Manager, its duly constituted Attorney Regional Office, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Rajbala and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Advocate and Mr. Hitesh Malik, Advocate, for the claimants. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal, challenging the liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. The owner was alleged to have committed a breach of the terms of the policy by entrusting the vehicle to a person who was not duly licenced. F.A.O.NO. 196 OF 1997 and 2 Cross Objection No. 24-CII of 1998 2. The grievance of the insurer was that it had moved an application for summoning the relevant register from the Licencing Authority but the Tribunal had rejected the application and pass an award on the same day. Under such circumstances I had passed an order dated 19.07.2010, granting an opportunity to the insurer to summon the relevant record from the Licencing Authority RW-6. It has been summoned and the original register was produced today in person and after comparing it with the original record, a true copy duly certified by the witness himself was received as evidence and marked as RW6/A. As per the Register, Driving Licence No. 9827/92 has been issued on 12.03.1992 in the name of N.K.Nayyar and it has not been issued in the name of Mahender Singh. It was elicited in the cross examination for the claimants that the clerk was not personally aware of the entries as he came to the seat subsequent to the date when the licence was issued. It has also been suggested that he is not aware of the identity of the licencee from the look of the photograph affixed in the register. I am of the view that the document is from proper custody and as entries in the public document, they require no further proof that what the document contains. 3. Copy of the licence produced by the driver ought to be therefore, fake and with no evidence coming from the owner about his own belief about the nature of licence, It has to be only inferred that the owner was guilty of breach of the terms of the policy. 4. The liability of the Insurer shall still be to satisfy the F.A.O.NO. 196 OF 1997 and 3 Cross Objection No. 24-CII of 1998 claimants but it shall have a right of recovery against the owner/insured. The award of the Tribunal shall stand modified to the above extent and the appeal is allowed to the above terms. 5. There is cross appeal for enhancement also filed by the claimants. The deceased was the driver in Haryana Roadways and evidence was produced before the Tribunal to the effect that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,010/- per month. The contention of the learned counsel is that the deceased was a regular employee with roadways and he was about to receive future increments as well. There were seven dependents and the Tribunal had provided for 1/3rd deduction. Learned counsel would submit that the whole compensation has to be reapprised in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 on the issue of multiplicand, for a person who was aged 30 years. The Tribunal ought to have provided for a 50% increase, which would result in amount of Rs. 4,515/- as the average pay for rest of his life. Since there were more than 5 dependents, the deduction must have been 1/5th and not 1/3rd as was done by the Tribunal. If provision for personal expenses were to be worked out on such basis, the monthly dependence to the family would be Rs. 3,612/-. The annual dependency would have been Rs. 43,344/- the deceased was aged 30 years and the appropriate multiplier would have been 17. The Tribunal has correctly applied the F.A.O.NO. 196 OF 1997 and 4 Cross Objection No. 24-CII of 1998 multiplier but as regards the provision for future increase and the deduction, the modifications would require to be done in the manner referred to above. The amount of compensation would be payable at Rs. 7,36,848/-, I will add Rs. 14,152/- towards conventional heads of claim and round it off Rs. 7,50,000/-. It appears that award itself contains sum clerical error and the award of Rs. 3,50,000/- by the Tribunal was subsequently corrected by the Tribunal as Rs. 4,18,000/- vide order dated 4.08.1998. The amount would stand increased as above and the amount in excess shall also carry interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of the payment. In the matter of apportionment of the additional amount, the same shall paid only to the widow and the children and the provision made for the parents already will not come to any alteration. Having regard to the fact that the accident had taken place more than 16 years back, I shall not make any direction for deposit of the amount. The amount could be permitted to be withdrawn by the parties provided that no one claimant is a minor. If there is any one amongst the claimants who is still a minor, the same shall stay in deposit as regards his/her share, only, till the age of majority and will be released on attaining his/her majority. 6. In view of the decision that I have come to already, the liability of the insurer shall be to satisfy the claimants. This additional burden shall also be borne by the insurer but it shall have a right of F.A.O.NO. 196 OF 1997 and 5 Cross Objection No. 24-CII of 1998 recovery against the owner of the vehicle. The cross objection is allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 23rd September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik