Punjab-Haryana High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Murti Devi Wife Of Late Sh. Balwan ... on 8 July, 2010
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.1432 of 2002 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
X Objection No.34-CII of 2002 in
FAO No.1432 of 2002 (O&M)
Date of Decision. 08.07.2010
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector
17-A, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney
.........Appellant
Versus
Smt. Murti Devi wife of late Sh. Balwan son of Preet Singh and others
.......Respondents
Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
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. The insurance company is in appeal on two grounds namely that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and seeks to support the contention by saying that the DDR entry was made six months later. The insurance company also took a plea that the driver did not have a valid driving licence.
2. The cause of the accident was borne out by the evidence of the driver, who was examined as RW-1. He had contended that the accident did not take place by his negligence but it arose on account of the fact that the driver was trying to cross the road and in the process got hit by the truck, which he was driving. This FAO No.1432 of 2002 (O&M) -2- evidence itself would show that the truck driver admitted the fact of accident but he was trying to place the negligence aspect on the driver of the lorry himself. The contention raised by the insurer, therefore, that the insurer's truck was not involved in the accident at all is not correct. The Tribunal has, however, noted this discrepancy in the written statement and in the evidence and found that the truck driver was responsible for the accident. I do not wish to upset the finding of fact rendered on appreciation of evidence.
3. Even on the issue relating to the validity of the driving licence, the insurance had sought to produce the register bearing the particular No.1200 of 1997, which is renewal of the licence issued on 06.05.1997. It was stated that licence No.1200 had not been issued in the name of the driver. The Tribunal reasoned that the licence had been issued in the year 1989 and without the production of the register for the year 1989, it could not be stated that the insurance company had discharged the burden of proof. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company argues vehemently that it was elicited in evidence from the official of the licensing authority that against same No.1200, there could not have been licenses issued in the year 1989 and again in the year 1997. This evidence cannot be conclusive, for we are deciding the issue under a beneficial enactment where a third party to the vehicle shall be compensated for injuries and the insurer must take upon himself the burden to prove the violation of terms of policy comprehensively. In my view, the non-production of the register for the particular year when the driving licence was said to have been issued namely for the year FAO No.1432 of 2002 (O&M) -3- 1989, it could not be contended that the insurance company had discharged the burden of proof. Both on the aspect of involvement of the vehicle namely the truck as well as the want of proof of a fake driving licence, I concur with the findings of the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
4. There is a claim for enhancement of compensation by cross appeal. The Tribunal took the contribution to the family to be Rs.4500/- per month and adopted a multiplier of 9. For a person, aged 50 years, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) ACJ 298 that appropriate multiplier would be 13. So reckoned, the amount that would become payable would be Rs.6,02,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.4,91,000/- and that includes Rs.5000/- towards last rites, transportation of dead body and loss of consortium. The amount of Rs.5,000/- only for the funeral expenses, transport of dead body and for loss of consortium, in my view, may not adequately compensate the loss of consortium and loss of love and affection for the children. I would provide for Rs.10,000/- as loss of consortium for the wife and Rs.5,000/- each for three of the children. These shall be in addition to the compensation arrived through the application of multiplier. In all, adding sum of Rs.25,000/-, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.6,27,000/- instead Rs.4,91,000/- as already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhancement of compensation in the manner provided above shall bear also interest @6% from the date of the award till the date of payment. The additional amount shall be distributed in the same proportion by FAO No.1432 of 2002 (O&M) -4- which the Tribunal had awarded the claim between the claimants No.1 to 5. The cross appeal is partly allowed in the manner referred to above.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE July 08, 2010 Pankaj*