United India Insurance Co Ltrd vs Harpal Singh & Ors

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

109 FAO-275-2003 (O&M) with
XOBJC-54-CII-2005
Date of decision :30.10.2026

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. . .. APPELLANT
VERSUS
HARPAL SINGH & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate

for the appellant.

Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate
for respondent No. 1.


PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)


1. Present appeal has been preferred by appellant-Insurance Company
being aggrieved by award dated 18.10.2002 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the claim petition filed by
injured-claimant Harpal Singh, seeking compensation on account of injuries
sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident dated 16.10.1995, was allowed
and compensation amounting to Rs. 1,63,000/- was awarded in his favour.

2. The sole argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal had erred in deciding issue No.
2, “whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the
time of accident?”. It is the case of the appellant-Insurance Company that the
respondent-driver had produced his driving license as Ex. R-2, which was issued
on 20.01.1998 and was valid from 20.01.1998 to 19.01.2001 for driving
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.10.31 12:58
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document





FAO-275-2003 (O&M) with -2-
XOBJC-54-CII-2005

scooter/LTV. It was the case of appellant-Insurance Company that the
respondent-driver was not holding a valid driving license authorizing him to
drive a Heavy Transport Vehicle (HTV), rather he was authorized to drive only
scooter/LTV on the date of the accident, i.e. 16.10.1995.

3. The learned Tribunal, while dealing with the aforesaid issue, had
duly noticed the following facts, which are not disputed by learned counsel for
the appellant-Insurance Company even in present appeal:

(i) That initially, respondent-driver-Rajinder Singh was issued
driving license No. 10672/P/92 in the year 1992, which was
valid up to 16.11.1995.

(ii) That at the time of issuance of the aforesaid driving license
in the year 1992, respondent-driver-Rajinder Singh was
authorized to drive scooter/LTV only.

(iii) That Rajinder Singh had deposited an amount of Rs. 15/-, as
reflected in the entry at Serial No. 58 of Ex. R-1, wherein the
purpose of deposit was recorded as "addition".

(iv) That driving license Ex. R-2 of Rajinder Singh was issued
for the period from 20.01.1998 to 19.02.2001 and was
subsequently renewed up to 19.02.2004, authorizing the
respondent-driver to drive scooter/LTV/HTV, as reflected in
the verification report Ex. R-3 issued by the Registering
Authority, Patiala.

4. All the aforesaid facts were duly taken into consideration by the
learned Tribunal while appreciating the evidence of RW-2 Sohan Lal Sharma,
Junior Assistant, Office of DTO, Patiala, who was examined by appellant-
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.10.31 12:58
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document





FAO-275-2003 (O&M) with -3-
XOBJC-54-CII-2005

Insurance Company itself to establish that the respondent-driver was not holding
a valid and effective driving license authorizing him to drive an HTV at the time
of the accident.

5. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence available on
record had held that the appellant-Insurance Company failed to discharge the
onus cast upon it to prove that the respondent-driver was not holding a valid and
effective driving license authorizing him to drive a Heavy Transport Vehicle
(HTV) at the time of the accident. The relevant findings of the Learned Tribunal
are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
“17. From the above facts, I find that though originally when the
respondent No.1 Rajinder Singh was issued a licence in the year
1992, he was not issued a driving licence authorizing him to drive
a HTV, but he is now possessing a driving licence for HTV as well
and which fact has been verified by the report of the Registering
Authority Patiala vide Ex.R-3. Now the question before this
Tribunal is that as to on which date the Registering Authority
Patiala, authorised Rajinder Singh to drive a HTV in addition to
Scooter/LTV. I find that there is no such date forthcoming from the
evidence though a bleak evidence is in the shape of Ex.R-1, i.e. a
copy of the cash book pertaining to the receipt of amount on
15.5.98, and as per entry recorded at Serial No.58, Rajinder Singh
has deposited an amount of Rs.15/-. Further against the said entry
the word "addition" also finds mentioned. In this context it is also
apposite to refer to the statement of RW-2 Sohan Lal Sharma,
Junior Asstt. Office of DTO Patiala. Though in the examination-in-
chief he has stated that as per the cash book dated 15.5.95, a receipt
for Rs.50/-for addition of HTV was issued in favour of Rajinder
Singh, but in fact the said amount is Rs.15/- as per Ex.R-1. The said
error could have been a slip of tongue or a typographical mistake
since 15 to 50, are almost pronounced identically. In any case in
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.10.31 12:58
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document





FAO-275-2003 (O&M) with -4-
XOBJC-54-CII-2005

Ex.R-1 the amount which has been deposited on 15.5.95, as per
entry at Serial No.58 is Rs.15/- and not 50/-. Further the said
witness in the last line of the cross-examination has stated that fee
for addition of endorsement of driving licence is Rs.15/-and not
Rs.50/-.”


6. On consideration of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal,
it is evident that the learned Tribunal had recorded a finding of fact that on
15.05.1995, the respondent-driver had duly deposited an amount of Rs. 15/-
towards the fee for addition of an endorsement authorizing him to drive a Heavy
Transport Vehicle (HTV), as reflected in the entry Ex. R-1. It is also an
established fact, duly proved on record through the verification report Ex. R-3
issued by the Licensing Authority, Patiala, that driving license Ex. R-2 was valid
up to 19.02.1994 for driving scooter/LTV/HTV in favour of the respondent-
driver. Perusal of the testimony of RW-2, an official from the Licensing
Authority, Patiala, further reveals that on 15.05.1995, the respondent-driver had
deposited an amount of Rs. 15/-, being the prescribed fee for addition of an
endorsement authorizing him to drive a Heavy Transport Vehicle. The said entry
clearly reflects that the amount was deposited for the purpose of seeking addition
of the aforesaid endorsement in his driving license.

7. From the cumulative appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, the
learned Tribunal had rightly concluded that the appellant-Insurance Company
failed to discharge the onus cast upon it to establish that the respondent-driver
was not holding a valid and effective driving license authorizing him to drive a
Heavy Transport Vehicle on the date of the accident, i.e. 16.10.1995. It is
significant to notice that the entry dated 15.05.1995 regarding deposit of the
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.10.31 12:58
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document





FAO-275-2003 (O&M) with -5-
XOBJC-54-CII-2005

requisite fee for addition of endorsement in the driving license of the respondent-
driver has neither been disputed nor disproved by appellant-Insurance Company
by leading any cogent evidence or producing the relevant record from the
Licensing Authority to establish that no such endorsement had been made. Once
the aforesaid documentary evidence was available on record, the onus was upon
the appellant-Insurance Company to establish its plea that the respondent-driver
was not duly authorized to drive a Heavy Transport Vehicle at the relevant time.
However, the appellant-Insurance Company failed to discharge the said onus.

8. In these circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned
Tribunal on issue No. 2 cannot be said to suffer from any illegality, perversity
or misappreciation of evidence. Rather, the learned Tribunal had duly considered
the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties and had rightly
held that the appellant-Insurance Company has failed to establish that the
respondent-driver was not holding a valid driving license authorizing him to
drive a Heavy Transport Vehicle at the time of the accident. Accordingly, issue
No. 2 was rightly decided against the appellant-Insurance Company. I do not
find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on this issue
warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the
Insurance Company, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed, hence
dismissed.
XOBJC-54-CII-2005

9. Respondent-claimant has also preferred cross-objections seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. It is
contended on behalf of the respondent-claimant that the compensation
amounting to Rs. 1,63,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate and
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.10.31 12:58
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document





FAO-275-2003 (O&M) with -6-
XOBJC-54-CII-2005

does not commensurate with the nature and extent of injuries suffered by him in
the accident, particularly when he has suffered permanent disability to the extent
of 60%. It is, therefore, argued that the learned Tribunal has failed to award just
and reasonable compensation keeping in view the permanent disability suffered
by the claimant and its impact upon his future life and earning capacity.

10. In the present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following
compensation to appellant-claimant:
Compensation for
permanent disability
Rs.1,20,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.20,000/-
Transportation Rs.3,000/-
Loss of earning capacity Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.1,63,000/-


11. Learned counsel for injured-claimant-appellant has sought
enhancement in compensation on the following grounds that :

● Learned Tribunal had erred in not granting compensation on the
basis of functional disability (as permanent disability is 60%);

● Learned Tribunal has erred in not taking the income of
appellant-claimant as was pleaded by the appellant-claimant;

● Future prospects were not added while determining loss of
earning capacity. Future prospects to the extent 40% of monthly
income needs to be added as appellant-claimant was 22 years of
age at the time of accident.

● Multiplier was not applied by learned Tribunal;

● Compensation for loss of future prospects and future amenities,
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.10.31 12:58
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document





FAO-275-2003 (O&M) with -7-
XOBJC-54-CII-2005

for loss of income during treatment and for future medical
expenses has not been granted to which appellant-claimant is
entitled to; and

● Enhancement of compensation for medical expenses & other
expenses and pain and sufferings is warranted being insufficient
in view of nature of injuries, nature of treatment and period of
hospitalisation.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant had claimed that on
account of accident he had suffered multiple injuries in the accident. It was
asserted that after the accident he was initially taken to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala
where he remained admitted from 16.10.1995 to 28.10.1995. However, in view
of his serious condition, he was shifted to Pahwa Hospital, Ludhiana, where he
remained admitted from 30.10.1995 to 26.11.1995.

13. In order to corroborate his assertions, appellant-claimant had
examined Inderjit Singh, Steno to Civil Surgeon as PW2 who duly stated that
the appellant-claimant had suffered disability to the extent of 60% and had
proved the disability certificate Ex.PW2/A issued by civil surgeon Fatehgarh
Sahib. Appellant-claimant had produced medical bills P-1 to P-109 claiming to
have spent Rs. 50,000/- on his treatment.

14. From the nature of injuries stated by PW2 and extent of disability
found by Civil Surgeon, Fatehgarh Sahib, it is clearly established that appellant-
claimant had suffered grievous injuries resulting into permanent disability
compromising his earning capacity to a great deal. The functional disability
therefore has to be determined keeping in view extent of permanent disability
along with nature of job which injured-appellant-claimant was performing prior
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.10.31 12:58
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document





FAO-275-2003 (O&M) with -8-
XOBJC-54-CII-2005

to the accident.

15. In present case, appellant-claimant had claimed himself to be a
tailor and a dairy farmer earning Rs.4,000/- per month though could not prove
the said income and vocation by leading any cogent evidence. However, it is
clearly made out that appellant-claimant was involved in labour work.
Therefore, the nature and extent of permanent disability in view of injury on his
right leg would lead to loss of future earning capacity and accordingly functional
disability is taken as 60%. In absence of any material/reliable to conclude
income of injured, same is taken as Rs.1,378/- per month i.e. minimum wages
payable to unskilled worker in the year 1995. Appellant-claimant was stated to
be 22 years old at the time of accident to which there is no rebuttal. Therefore,
40% towards future prospects for the purposes of determining loss of earning
capacity also needs to be added in view of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. , 2017
(16) SCC 680. Multiplier of ‘18’ shall be applicable as per the age of deceased
in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma &
Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. , 2009(6) SCC 121.
Accordingly, loss of earning capacity payable to appellant-claimant has to be
determined by taking functional disability equivalent to 60% after taking
monthly income of the injured to be Rs.1,378/-, by adding future prospects to
the extent of 40% and by applying multiplier of ‘ 18 ’.

16. Since appellant-claimant had suffered permanent disability to the
extent of 60%, he would have been deprived of future amenities of life as well
as future prospects of life/marriage prospects, therefore, he shall be entitled to
compensation for loss of future prospects including marriage prospects and
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.10.31 12:58
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document





FAO-275-2003 (O&M) with -9-
XOBJC-54-CII-2005

future amenities of life which is quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- . Compensation for
medical expenses, transportation, special diet and attendant charges are
enhanced to Rs. 60,000 /-.

17. In view of nature of injuries and extent of disability, appellant-
claimant must have suffered immense pain and sufferings, accordingly, he is
entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Appellant-claimant must
have also suffered loss of income for the time he was under treatment and
keeping in view period of hospitalization and nature of injuries, it is made out
that appellant-claimant must have remained out of job for at least 09 months.
Accordingly, compensation for loss of income during treatment is assessed as
Rs . 12,402 /- (1378/- X 9).

18. Re-worked compensation payable to appellant-claimant is as
under:-
Income Rs.1,378/-
per month
Rs.1,378/-
per month
Future prospects 40%
(Rs.1,378/-+ 551)
Rs.1,929/-
60% functional
disability
60% of Rs.1,929/- Rs.1,157/-
Multiplier 18 18
Total loss of earning
capacity
Rs.1,157/- X 18 X 12 Rs.2,49,912/-
Loss of income
during treatment
Rs.1,378/- X 9 Rs.12,402/-
Compensation for
medical expenses,
transportation,
special diet and
attendant charges
Rs.23,000/-
(awarded by Tribunal for
medical expenses and
transportation)
Rs.60,000/-
Compensation for
pain and sufferings
Rs.50,000/-
Compensation for
loss of future
prospects and future
amenities of life
Rs.1,00,000/-
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.10.31 12:58
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document





FAO-275-2003 (O&M) with -10-
XOBJC-54-CII-2005

Total compensation
awarded by the
Tribunal
Rs.1,63,000/-
Total compensation
awarded in appeal
Rs.4,72,314 /-
Enhanced Rs.4,72,314/-
compensation (awarded in appeal) -
Rs.1,63,000/-
(awarded by Tribunal)
Rs.3,09,314 /-


19. Appellant-claimant shall also be entitled to interest over enhanced
amount to the extent of 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till its
realization. The liability of respondents to pay compensation shall be as per
award.

20. Accordingly, XOBJC-54-CII-2005 is allowed in above terms.

21. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed
of accordingly.


30.10.2026 (PARMOD GOYAL)

manoj JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No



MANOJ KUMAR
2026.10.31 12:58
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document