Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 733 (PNJ)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vasdev Kalra

2014-04-23

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
Judgment JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, challenging the impugned Award dated 25.10.1999, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereas, the cross-objections have been filed by the claimants for the enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that it is proved on record beyond any doubt that the original driving licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle was fake and its renewal thereafter by some other Competent Authority will not validate the licence. At the time of the accident the driver was not having any valid and effective driving licence, so the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He further argued that the amount of compensation awarded is on the higher side. He relies upon the two judgments i.e. New India Assurance Co. vs. Kamla 2001(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 716 and Varinder Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and others 2013(1) AICJ 426 passed by the Supreme Court of India and of this Court, respectively. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the cross-objectors submits that the amount of compensation is on the lower side which may be enhanced suitably. The learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 i.e. Owner and driver submits that once a driving licence is renewed by the Competent Authority, its validity cannot be challenged. The respondent No.4 was an expert driver and the owner, at the time of his engagement had tested his driving skill and believed the driving licence produced by the driver, respondent No.4, to be a genuine document. Therefore, he argues that the appellant-Insurance Company has been rightly held liable to pay the compensation. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. In New India Assurance Company Vs. Kamla, it has been held that :“As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. In New India Assurance Company Vs. Kamla, it has been held that :“As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. Section 15 of the Act only empowers any licensing authority to “renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry.” No licencing authority has the power of renew a fake licence and, therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Any counterfeit document showing that it contains a purported order of a statutory authority would ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact that other persons including some statutory authorities would have acted on the document unwittingly on the assumption that it is genuine.” Thus, once the original licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was found to be fake and forged, its subsequent renewal cannot make it genuine because the renewal thereof cannot cure the inherent defect. This view was also taken by this Bench in Varinder Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and others, 2013(1) AICJ 426. In this case, an assistant of the office of Licence Authority, Hamirpur, while appearing as RW2, deposed that the driving licence No. 16533/8889 was not issued in favour of Jasbir Singh son of Balkar Singh, resident of Village Dugri, PS Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. The total number of the driving licences issued by the Licensing Authority, Hamirpur was about 5000 only. Even the renewals had not reached the serial No. of 16533. The last serial number regarding renewal is 10031 of the year 198889. Ex.R1 which pertains the serial No.16533/8889 was never issued by the office of Licensing Authority, Hamirpur. The above statement of RW2, clearly proves that the licence was a fake and forged document, meaning thereby that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Ex.R1 which pertains the serial No.16533/8889 was never issued by the office of Licensing Authority, Hamirpur. The above statement of RW2, clearly proves that the licence was a fake and forged document, meaning thereby that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. As the driving licence held by respondent No.4 was void abinitio, and its subsequent renewal by the office of the Licensing Authority, Hamirpur from time to time will not make it a genuine document, thus the findings of the learned Tribunal on issue No.4 are apparently erroneous and are hereby reversed by holding that the subsequent renewal of a fake and forged driving licence will not revalidate it. As the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, the Insurance Company is not held liable to pay the compensation. The findings of the learned Tribunal to the effect that the respondent No.3Insurance Company is liable to pay the claimants are hereby reversed. Accordingly, Jasbir Singh (Respondent No.2) and Nitin Sharma (Respondent No.1), the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle No. 407PB075449 are held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. The appellant-Insurance Company is absolved of its liability to pay the amount of compensation. Ordered accordingly. Cross Objection No.44CII of 2013 In the instant case, the deceased was 55 years of age at the time of the accident. She was a Teacher in Government Girls Middle School, Talwara and was drawing a salary of Rs.7,294/per month. Her husband was already a pensioner and getting Rs.4,183/per month as pension. After applying deduction of ½ for personal expenses, the annual dependency is assessed at Rs.43,200/. As per the record, the age of the deceased has been taken as 55 years by the learned Tribunal and a multiplier of 6 has been applied, whereas, as per law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (SC), 2009(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 77, it ought to have been 11. It is held accordingly. In view of the above, the amount of compensation under the head 'dependency' comes to Rs.4,75,200/(Rs.43,200 X 11), as against the amount of Rs.2,59,200/, awarded by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the balance amount payable would come to Rs.2,16,000/towards dependency. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/towards loss of consortium to the husband. In view of the law in Rajesh Vs. In view of the above, the amount of compensation under the head 'dependency' comes to Rs.4,75,200/(Rs.43,200 X 11), as against the amount of Rs.2,59,200/, awarded by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the balance amount payable would come to Rs.2,16,000/towards dependency. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/towards loss of consortium to the husband. In view of the law in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh (SC), 2013(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 170 deserves to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/(minus Rs.5,000/already awarded by the learned Tribunal). In this way, the claimants-appellants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,11,000/-(Rs.2,16,000/(loss of dependency) + Rs.95,000/(loss of consortium to the husband)], over and above, the amount already awarded by the learned Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall be paid to the claimants-appellants, in the manner indicated in the impugned award, within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, failing which, the appellants shall also be entitled to get interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of the filing of the appeal, till its realization. Consequently, FAO No. 441 of 2000 and cross Objections No.44CII of 2013 are allowed, and the impugned award dated 25.10.1999 is modified to the extent indicated above. The statutory amount, if any, deposited at the time of filing of the appeal shall be refunded to the appellant-Assurance Company by way of demand draft after deducting the Bank charges.