Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Narinder Kaur And Others on 14 January, 2014
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
Archana arora
FAO No. 196 of 2014 1 2014.01.29 16:52
I am the author of this
document
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 196 of 2014
Date of decision January 14, 2014
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
....... Appellant
Versus
Narinder Kaur and others
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. R. C. Kapoor, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
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. The appeal by the Insurance Company is absolutely frivolous. The counsel places before me two arguments both of which are stale and covered by case law. The first argument is that it was not a case of invalid license or a fake license but it was a case of no license at all. Therefore in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sujata Arora and others 2013 ACJ 2129 the Insurance Company will not be liable at all. It is a strange understanding of law which the counsel seeks to propound in a case of breach of violation of terms of policy. It is another way of saying that if the driver had no driving license, Insurance Company would not be liable but if the driver, not having a license decides to fake a driving license or manufactures a fake one, FAO No. 196 of 2014 2 the driver and owner will be spared and Insurance Company will be spared. Of course there are some decisions of the Supreme Court where in cases of no license at all Insurance Company has been spared of liability. They are: Sardari and others Vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) ACJ 1307, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sujata Arora (2013) ACJ 2129, The latter judgment makes reference to the former but there are several judgments squarely on the point of pay and recover principle. The law has been laid down as early as New India Assurance Co. Vs. Kamla (2001) 4 SCC 342 that the Insurance Co. will be liable in terms of Section 149(4) proviso read with Section 149 (5) and the entitlement shall only be to recover the same from the owner-insured. This law has been examined and cited by the Supreme Court in several other judgments namely National Insurance Co. V. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 342 and recently in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. 2013 10 SCC 217. Any other understanding of law that the Insurance Company cannot be made liable at all is a travesty and runs counter to the expression of the provisions of law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal has provided for such a relief of recovery against the insured and the owner and to vex this court with an appeal is an unfortunate exercise.
2. Counsel also has another objection that the deceased was 54 years of age and therefore the Tribunal must have a split multiplier provided for the number of years which he would have served with a particular multiplicand and allow for the lower multiplicand for the remaining number of years beyond the period of FAO No. 196 of 2014 3 superannuation. The counsel would refer to a decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saroj Devi and others (2012) 1 PLR 761 for such a reliance of calculation adopted. I respectfully would differ with this theory, when there are specific pronouncements of the Supreme Court as to how there shall be a uniformity of approach in the manner of determining the compensation for death. Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121 is the most leading citation of which sets out for a particular schedule after taking note of several decisions rendered by the Supreme Court itself and suggest for a person between the age of 51 to 55 years. the multiplier shall be 11. This judgment was again reappraised in Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65 and has suggested the same multiplier and allowed the formula that shall be adopted for homogeneity of approach for whole of India. It admits of no judicial innovations by lower courts including the High Court by adventurist exercise indulged by the Insurance Company. We have come by difficult phase of Courts being vexed with unnecessary litigations and if public bodies like Insurance Company must indulge in such frivolous appeals, they should only be shown the door with the contempt that they deserve.
2. The appeal is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 14, 2014 archana