FAO No.17 of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.17 of 1997 Date of Decision. 04.01.2011 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through Shri S.M. Garg, Manager, Regional Office, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh ...... Appellant Versus Sushil Kumar Sethi and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. 2. FAO No.346 of 1997 Sushil Kumar Sethi s/o Madan Gopal Sethi ......Appellant Versus Mander Singh and others ......Respondents Present: None for the appellant. None for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. Both the appeals in FAO No.17 and 346 of 1997 are connected, the former is at the instance of the insurer denying the liability and the latter is at the instance of the claimants seeking for FAO No.17 of 1997 -2- enhancement of compensation. There is no representation for the appellants in FAO No.346 of 1997 at the time when the matter is called. I proceed to examine this case on the basis of submissions made by the counsel appearing for the insurance company. 2. The point urged by the insurer is that the driver did not have a valid driving licence since the licence produced showed that he had only a licence to drive a car or a jeep, which is a light motor vehicle category but the vehicle involved in the accident and which the driver was driving, was a truck. The policy for the vehicle showed that it was a commercial vehicle and belonged to the category of a transport vehicle. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates that a person driving a transport vehicle shall carry a licence that has an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. The driver was, therefore, not duly licenced and the liability of the insurance company could, therefore, be only to satisfy the claimants and will have a right of recovery against the insured for breach of terms of policy. 3. As regards the claim for enhancement of compensation for the injury suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal had assessed the sum setting out the details under various heads:- i) Charges for medicines etc. Rs.10,000/- ii) Medical treatment in the shape of operation Rs.20,000/- iii) Future expenses on medicines and Rs.20,000/- operations iv) Suffering and pain Rs.40,000/- v) Transportation to various hospital upon Rs.10,000/- repeated visits vi) 50% permanent disability Rs.50,000/- FAO No.17 of 1997 -3- vii) Loss of income Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.1,60,000/- 4. I find that the Tribunal has addressed the issue relating to injuries correctly on the basis of medical evidence tendered through Dr. Soni, who had carried out a plastic surgery and through Dr. R.K. Dhamija, who had testified about the extent of disability as 50%, the injured having suffered an impairment of hearing, which was permanent. There is no appearance on behalf of the appellants to sustain the claim for enhancement. 5. Consequently, the appeal in FAO No.17 of 1997 filed by the insurance company is allowed to the extent of providing for a right of recovery against the owner insured and the appeal filed by the claimants in FAO No.346 of 1997 seeking for enhancement is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 04, 2011 Pankaj*