FAO No.4754 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4754 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision. 14.03.2011 Dalbir Singh son of Nehar Singh r/o village Kabarcha Police Station, Ujhana, District Jind and another ......Appellants Versus Ram Kali wife of Sube Singh and others .....Respondents 2. FAO No.5433 of 2009 Dalbir Singh son of Nehar Singh r/o village Kabarcha Police Station, Ujhana, District Jind and another ......Appellants Versus Shakti Singh alias Vishal son of Parkash Singh and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the insurance company. None for other respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. Both the appeals are connected and are at the instance of the driver and owner contending that the insurance company could not have been exonerated. It is the further contention that the quantum assessed is also high. 2. On the issue of liability, the contention of the driver and FAO No.4754 of 2009 (O&M) -2- owner is that there was no valid proof of the fact that the driving licence was not genuine. The insurance company had merely relied on report of a surveyor that the licence was fake. In fact, the licence had been originally issued from Licensing Authority, Una and subsequently renewed by the Licensing Authority at Jind through Ex.R5. The Tribunal itself observed that these documents R-5 and R-6 had not been proved by summoning of any competent witness from the licensing authority at Una or Jind. The Tribunal reasoned that the owner and the driver did not establish the genuineness. The law is to the contrary that an insurer who complains of breach of terms of policy and which wants to contend that the licence produce by a driver was not genuine, shall establish by taking upon itself the burden by examining the competent licensing authority. The burden is wrongly cast by the Tribunal and therefore, the insurance company ought to take the responsibility for the claim arising out of the accident. 3. As regards the issue of quantum, the deceased was a young bachelor and the claimants were the parents. The Tribunal took the extent of dependence at Rs.2,000/- per month and adopted a multiplier of 11. The overall compensation determined by the Tribunal at Rs.2,74,000/- is, in my view, just and appropriate and it would not require to be scaled down for any reason. 4. As regards the quantum in the connected appeal in FAO No.5433 of 2009, the claimant had suffered injury in a motor accident and the Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- as compensation. As regards the liability I have already held that the insurance company would be liable to pay the compensation. Even the assessment of compensation at FAO No.4754 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Rs.30,000/- is modest in the light of injury suffered and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 5. Both the appeals are allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 14, 2011 Pankaj*