IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3853 of 2007 Date of decision:23.07.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Rekha Bajaj and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.664 of 2008 (O&M) Smt. Rekha Bajaj and others ....Appellant versus Raja Ram and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No.3853 of 2007 and for respondent No.3 in FAO No.664 of 2008. Mr. Rajesh Sheoran, Advocate, for the respondents in FAO No.3853 of 2007 and for the appellants in FAO No.664 of 2008. ---- 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 cases are connected and are disposed of by common order. 2. The Insurance Company challenges the award casting the liability on the insured even when it was clearly brought on record that the driving licence had expired on the date of the accident and the renewal was done only far beyond the period of 30 days. In this case, the FAO No.3853 of 2007 - 2 - accident took place on 22.01.2004 and the driver's licence expired on 15.01.2004. The Tribunal reasoned that by virtue of the provisions of Section 15, there was a grace period of 30 days for renewal and since the accident had taken place in about a week's time from the date when the licence expired, it should only be taken that the driver had a valid driving licence. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company finds serious fault on this reasoning on the ground that Section 15 is a provision that discusses the period within which a renewal shall be made. It contains no deeming provision for taking a person to hold a valid driving licence. As forcible as the argument as it is, as the circumstances would dictate, but I still find the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is another way of looking at the same issue of when it would have made the Insurance Company liable if such a renewal had been made subsequent to the accident. It is irrelevant that it was not so made so long as the expiry of the driving licence was only a week prior to the date of the accident. A provision for renewal by 30 days is a grace period which will enable the insured to secure a full indemnity for any risk arising out of the accident during that period whether the licence was renewed subsequently or not. 3. The plea relating to the driving licence is, therefore, rejected and then the issue that will fall for consideration is the issue of quantum. The claimants before the Tribunal were wife, son and parents of the deceased. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased to be Rs.2,400/- arrived at a contribution of Rs.1,600/- and so reckoned, the amount ought to have determined as Rs.3,07,200/-. For the conventional heads of FAO No.3853 of 2007 - 3 - claim, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/-. In my view, it should have accorded Rs.10,000/- for the loss of consortium to the wife, Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection for the child, Rs.2,500/- each for funeral expenses and loss to estate. There shall be consequently Rs.15,000/- in addition to what was already provided by the Tribunal. In all, the total shall be Rs.3,22,200/-. This constitutes an additional amount of Rs.43,400/- and this will bear interest at 7.5% from the date of the award of the Tribunal till the date of the payment. Out of the additional amount of Rs.43,400/-, Rs.3,400/- shall go for the father appellant and the remaining shall be taken between wife and son equally. The amount bearing to the share of the son shall be retained in deposit with a nationalized bank to the credit of the case before the Tribunal and paid to the minor on attaining majority. Till such time, the minor shall have the benefit of interest accruals periodically. The appeal filed by the claimants are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 23.07.2010 sanjeev