Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kuldeep Kaur And Ors on 30 October, 2014
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
F.A.O. No.7197 of 2010 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of Decision: 30.10.2014
F.A.O. No.7197 of 2010
National Insurance Co. Limited
---Appellant
versus
Kuldeep Kaur and others
---Respondents
F.A.O. No.5839 of 2011
Kuldeep Kaur and another
---Appellants
versus
Balbir Singh and others
---Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
Present: Mr.Paul S.Saini, Advocate
for the Insurance company
Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate
for the respondents-claimants
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
***
REKHA MITTAL, J.
This order will dispose of FAO No. 7197 of 2010 titled National Insurance Company Limitd vs. Kuldeep Kaur and others and FAO No.5839 of 2011 "Kuldeep Kaur and another vs. Balbir Singh and others"
as these are off shoot of common award dated 14.9.2010 passed by the F.A.O. No.7197 of 2010 -2- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (in short "the Tribunal") whereby compensation has been awarded in favour of the respondents-claimants in regard to death of Harjinder Singh in a motor vehicular accident on 15.8.2001 due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HNE 9485 driven by Balbir Singh @ Pappi. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,40,000/- payable along with interest and the driver, owner and insurer were held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
The National Insurance Company Limited (for brevity "the insurance company") has preferred the appeal to challenge the findings of the Tribunal only qua validity and genuineness of the driving licence held by Balbir Singh, driver of the offending vehicle. The other appeal has been preferred by Kuldeep Kaur and another seeking enhancement of compensation.
The parties shall be referred to as the claimants, insured and the insurance company for facility of reference.
FAO-5839 of 2011 Counsel for the claimants contends that the learned Tribunal has not allowed benefit of increase in income for future prospects and compensation awarded under conventional heads needs re-look and enhancement.
There is no representation on behalf of the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. However, counsel for the insurance company has supported the award passed by the Tribunal with the submissions that there is no ground for enhancement of compensation.
The learned Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs. F.A.O. No.7197 of 2010 -3- 3000/- per month, allowed deduction to the extent of 1/3rd, adopted multiplier of 18 to compute loss of dependency. Another amount of Rs. 2000/- was awarded for funeral expenses and Rs. 5000/- for loss of consortium. The deceased was 20 years of age, therefore, the appellants shall be entitled to benefit of increase in income to the extent of 50% in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others (2013)3 RCR (Civil) 170. After allowing benefit of increase in income to the aforesaid extent, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,32,000/-+2,16,000/-=Rs.6,48,000/-.
Kuldeep Kaur, widow of the deceased shall be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Mother of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection of her son. The appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 25,000/- each for expenses on funeral and last rites and loss of estate. The total compensation comes to Rs. 8,48,000/- and the enhanced amount is Rs. 4,08,000/-.
The enhanced amount of compensation shall be payable to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization. If the insurer deposits the amount in the Tribunal within 45 days, interest at the rate of 6% shall be payable. Out of the enhanced amount of compensation, Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be payable to the mother and the remaining amount to widow of the deceased. FAO-7197 of 2010 Counsel for the insurance company contends that Shashi Bhushan, Assistant in the office of the District Transport Office, Patiala was F.A.O. No.7197 of 2010 -4- examined in order to find out validity of driving licence held by Balbir Singh at the time of accident. Shashi Bhushan deposed on the basis of record that driving licence of Balbir Singh was renewed from their office vide renewal No. 4600/R/03 and as per this renewal, it is valid from 21.5.2003 to 20.5.2006. The old particulars have been mentioned as 26345/P/94 and he verified the record and the said number did not pertain to their office, The old number written as 382/R/97 also did not pertain to Balbir Singh as licence No. 382 (renewal) pertains to Pal Khan as per copy of relevant page of the Register Ex. R-2.
It is argued with vehemence that in view of testimony of Shashi Bhushan, it is proved on record that neither the original licence bearing No. 26345/P/94 was issued by the licencing authority, Patiala nor the renewal bearing No. 382/R/97 was issued in the name of Balbir Singh. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error as failed to correctly appreciate statement of Shashi Bhushan by holding that Balbir Singh was possessing a genuine and valid licence at the time of accident in view of renewal of his licence bearing No. 382/R/97.
There is no representation on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4, driver and owner respectively of the offending vehicle.
The learned Tribunal formulated certain questions for decision and one of the issues framed on the basis of plea of the insurance company reads as follows:-
"Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident?OPR"
To discharge onus of this issue, the insurance company F.A.O. No.7197 of 2010 -5- examined aforesaid Shashi Bhushan, an official from the office of District Transport Office, Patiala. The witness was summoned along with record pertaining to licence bearing Nos. 382/R/97 and 4600/R/03. He deposed in his examination in chief as pointed out by counsel for the insurance company. The witness during cross examination by counsel for respondent No. 2 (owner) stated that renewal entry No. 382 in Ex. R2 may be wrongly written in the name of Pal Khan son of Sarif instead of Balbir Singh son of Chanan Singh by the dealing clerk. He further deposed that photo copy of the driving licence at the back side of form No. 10 which is Ex. R-3 is genuine one according to his record. Further during his cross examination by counsel for respondents No. 1 and 4, he has deposed that licence 382/R/97 and 4600/R/2003 were renewed from their office for two times. Driving licence 26345/P/94 in form No. 10 is wrongly written by clerical mistake. Licence No. 382/R/97 is valid from 20.1.2000 to 19.1.2003 according to record. Subsequent to examination of Shashi Bhushan, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 tendered into evidence documents and closed evidence. Respondent No. 1, driver of the offending vehicle did not furnish the particulars of his initial driving licence which was statedly renewed twice vide licence Nos. 382/R/97 and 4600/R/2003. As driver/owner of the offending vehicle did not furnish particulars of original licence, the insurance company was deprived of its right to seek verification of such licence, if genuine or otherwise. In case the original licence is fake, renewal thereof even according to law, will not wipe away illegality in the original licence. This apart, the witness, in place of making the picture clear, rather has tried to create confusion, may be with an intent F.A.O. No.7197 of 2010 -6- to favour the private party, owner and driver of the vehicle. There is nothing in the statement of Shashi Bhushan that he identifies the signatures of the concerned District Transport Office, Patiala on renewal licence bearing No. 382/R/97 in order to say that the same is genuine and correct. The learned Tribunal did not bother to seek clarification from the witness that in absence of relevant entry in the official record in the name of Balbir singh and on the contrary, the said entry being in the name of Pal Khan son of Sarif, on what basis he stated that photo copy of licence at the back side of form No. 10 Ex. R-3 is a genuine one. The driver of the offending vehicle did not lead any evidence in rebuttal nor provided particulars of his original licence. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the insurance company has successfully discharged onus to prove that Balbir Singh was not holding a valid licence at the time of occurrence, therefore, the insured is guilty of violating terms and conditions of the policy which entitles the insurance company to recover the amount of compensation from the insured after discharging liability qua the claimants. Accordingly, findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No. 3 are set aside and the said issue is decided in favour of the insurance company and against the insured.
For the reasons aforesaid, FAOs aforesaid are decided in favour of respective appellants, in the terms indicated above.
(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE 30.10.2014 PARAMJIT