National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajiv @ Deepak & ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
I.
FAO-1662-2001 Naonal Insurance Co. Ltd.
. . . . Appellants Vs.
Babita and Others . . . . Respondents ******** II.
FAO-1663-2001 Naonal Insurance Co. Ltd.
. . . . Appellants Vs.
Savita Devi and Others . . . . Respondents ******** III.
FAO-1664-2001 Naonal Insurance Co. Ltd.
. . . . Appellants Vs.
Babita and Others . . . . Respondents ******** IV.
FAO-1665-2001 Naonal Insurance Co. Ltd.
. . . . Appellants Vs.
Rajiv @ Deepak and Others . . . . Respondents ******** V.
FAO-66-2002 Babita and Others . . . . Appellants Vs.
Riaz Ahmad and Others . . . . Respondents ******** VI.
FAO-67-2002 Savita Devi and Others . . . . Appellants Vs.
Riaz Ahmad and Others . . . . Respondents ****
Reserved on: 11.05.2026
Pronounced on: 13.05.2026 Pronounced fully/operave part: Fully ****
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-66-2002 and FAO-1663-2001 and for respondent No.5 in FAO-1662-2001.
Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for the Insurance Company.
**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
This common judgment shall govern disposal of six connected appeals arising out of the same motor vehicular accident and involving common ques7ons of fact and law.
2.
The unfortunate occurrence took place on 22.04.1998. Jagdish Lal (deceased), Kanta Devi (deceased), Rakesh Kumar (deceased) and Rajiv @ Deepak were travelling in Tata Sumo bearing registra7on No. HR-06D-6811 from Karnal towards Delhi. The vehicle was being driven by Rakesh Kumar. As per the case set up by the claimants, when the Tata Sumo aAempted to overtake truck No. JK-02G-3589 aCer blowing horn, respondent No.1, who was driving the said truck in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly swerved the truck towards the Tata Sumo. In an aAempt to save the vehicle, the Tata Sumo struck against the road divider, crossed over to the opposite carriageway and overturned. Another truck bearing registra7on No.
PIS-4471, coming from the opposite direc7on, collided with the overturned Tata Sumo, resul7ng in fatal injuries to Jagdish Lal and Rakesh Kumar died at the spot, while Kanta Devi succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. Rajiv @ Deepak sustained mul7ple injuries and was moved to Civil Hospital, Sonipat. ACer regaining consciousness, his statement formed the basis for registra7on of FIR at Police Sta7on Rai under Sec7ons 279 and 304A IPC against respondent No.1. 3.
Separate claim pe77ons under Sec7on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act were ins7tuted by the legal representa7ves of the deceased Jagdish Lal, Kanta Devi and Rakesh Kumar, while injured Rajiv @ Deepak also filed an independent claim pe77on seeking compensa7on for injuries sustained by him. All the pe77ons were consolidated and decided by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat vide common award dated 04.01.2001. 4.
The respondents-driver, owner and insurer contested the claim pe77ons. Apart from dispu7ng negligence, the insurance company raised a specific defence that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effec7ve driving li-
cence at the 7me of accident and, therefore, there was breach of condi7ons of the insurance policy.
5.
Upon apprecia7on of oral as well as documentary evidence, learned Tribunal returned a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. JK-02G-3589 by respondent No.1. Learned Tribunal further held that the insurance company failed to establish breach of terms and condi7ons of the insurance policy, par7cularly regarding invalidity of the driving licence of respondent No.1. 6.
Consequently, compensa7on was awarded in the following manner: MACT No.48 of 1998 (death of Kanta Devi) : ₹1,50,000/- MACT No.49 of 1998 (death of Rakesh Kumar) : ₹3,13,200/- MACT No.50 of 1998 (death of Jagdish Lal) : ₹4,38,000/- MACT No.51 of 1998 (injury claim of Rajiv @ Deepak) : ₹15,000/- 7.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid award, Na7onal Insurance Company filed four appeals i.e. FAO Nos.1662 to 1665 of 2001 challenging the finding regarding validity of the driving licence of respondent No.1. On the other hand, claimants in two claim pe77ons preferred FAO Nos.66 and 67 of 2002 seeking enhancement of compensa7on awarded in respect of deaths of Jagdish Lal and Rakesh Kumar respec7vely.
8.
This Court has heard learned counsel for the par7es and carefully perused the record.
FAO No.66 of 2002 (Death of Jagdish Lal) 9.
It is not disputed before this Court that deceased Jagdish Lal was about 45 years of age at the 7me of accident. Learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income on no7onal basis at ₹3,000/- per month and the said assessment has not been assailed by either side. 10.
The grievance raised by learned counsel for the claimants is that learned Tribunal failed to grant addi7on towards future prospects, applied an in-
correct mul7plier and inadequately compensated the claimants under conven7onal heads. 11.
The compensa7on payable is, therefore, required to be recalculated in the light of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Smt. Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporaon and anr.", (2009) 6 SCC 121; Naonal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680; "Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others", 2018(18) SCC 130.
12.
The monthly income of the deceased being ₹3,000/-, the annual income works out to ₹36,000/-. Since the deceased was between 40 to 50 years of age, addi7on of 25% towards future prospects is liable to be made in view of the law laid down in Naonal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (supra), thereby taking the annual income to ₹45,000/-. 13.
There being five dependents, namely widow, three children and widowed mother, deduc7on towards personal and living expenses is liable to be assessed at one-fourth in terms of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporaon (supra). Consequently, annual loss of dependency comes to ₹33,750/-. 14.
Considering the age of the deceased, the applicable mul7plier would be '14'. Thus, the total loss of dependency works out to ₹4,72,500/- (₹33,750 × 14).
15.
The widow, children and mother are also en7tled to consor7um under the categories of spousal, parental and filial consor7um in view of the law laid down in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (supra). Having regard to the fact that the accident pertains to the year 1998, an amount of ₹20,000/- each is awarded to all five claimants under the head of consor7um. Further, ₹10,000/- each is awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate.
16. Accordingly, compensa7on is recalculated as under: Loss of dependency : ₹4,72,500/-
Consor7um : ₹1,00,000/- Funeral expenses : ₹10,000/- Loss of estate : ₹10,000/- Total : ₹5,92,500/- 17.
ACer deduc7ng the amount of ₹4,38,000/- already awarded by the learned Tribunal, the claimants become en7tled to enhanced compensa7on of ₹1,54,500/-, which is rounded off to ₹1,55,000/-. 18.
Consequently, FAO No.66 of 2002 is partly allowed and the claimants are held en7tled to enhanced compensa7on of ₹1,55,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe77on 7ll actual realiza7on.
19.
Out of the enhanced compensa7on amount, ₹35,000/- each along with propor7onate interest shall be payable to the widow and three children of the deceased, whereas ₹15,000/- along with propor7onate interest shall be payable to the mother. However, in case the mother has expired before disbursement, her share shall devolve equally upon the remaining four claimants. FAO No.67 of 2002 (Death of Rakesh Kumar) 20.
Insofar as compensa7on rela7ng to deceased Rakesh Kumar is concerned, it is not disputed that he was aged about 24-25 years at the 7me of accident and his monthly income was rightly assessed by the learned Tribunal at ₹2,400/- per month on no7onal basis.
21.
The annual income accordingly comes to ₹28,800/-. Since the deceased was below 40 years of age, addi7on of 40% towards future prospects is required to be made in terms of Naonal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (supra), thereby taking annual income to ₹40,320/-. 22.
There being three dependents, namely widow, minor daughter and aged father, deduc7on of one-third towards personal expenses is liable to be made. Consequently, annual loss of dependency works out to ₹26,880/-.
23.
Applying mul7plier of '18' in terms of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporaon (supra), the total loss of dependency comes to ₹4,83,840/-. 24.
The claimants are also en7tled to consor7um under different categories at the rate of ₹20,000/- each, totaling ₹60,000/-. Further sums of ₹10,000/- each are awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate.
25. Thus, total compensa7on payable is computed as under: Loss of dependency : ₹4,83,840/- Consor7um : ₹60,000/- Funeral expenses : ₹10,000/- Loss of estate : ₹10,000/- Total : ₹5,63,840/- 26.
ACer deduc7ng the amount of ₹3,13,200/- already awarded by the learned Tribunal, the enhanced compensa7on works out to ₹2,50,640/-, which is rounded off to ₹2,51,000/-.
27.
Accordingly, FAO No.67 of 2002 is partly allowed and the claimants are held en7tled to enhanced compensa7on of ₹2,51,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim pe77on 7ll realiza7on. 28.
Out of the enhanced amount, ₹1,20,000/- each along with propor7onate interest shall be payable to the widow and daughter of the deceased, whereas ₹11,000/- along with propor7onate interest shall be payable to the father. In case the father is no longer surviving, his share shall devolve equally upon the widow and daughter.
Appeals filed by Insurance Company (FAO Nos.1662 to 1665 of 2002) 29.
The sole issue arising in the four appeals preferred by the insurance company is whether respondent No.1 was holding a valid and effec7ve driving licence on the date of accident.
30.
Learned Tribunal, while dealing with the said issue, extensively examined the evidence led by the par7es and concluded that the insurance company failed to prove invalidity or falsity of the driving licence relied upon by respondent No.1. 31.
Respondent No.1, while appearing as RW-1, produced photocopy of driving licence Ex.R1 along with verifica7on report Ex.R2. The insurance company examined a clerk from the licensing authority, Jammu as RW-3, who stated that licence No.62088/J had been issued in the name of one Jitender Kumar son of Dhani Ram. However, significantly, RW-3 did not categorically depose that the licence produced by respondent No.1 was fake or fabricated. Even regarding verifica7on report Ex.R2, the witness failed to dispute its authen7city. 32.
A careful perusal of the driving licence relied upon by respondent No.1 reveals that the same bore endorsement No.DL62088/J/1989 and had originally been issued in the name of respondent No.1-Riyaz Ahmad by the licensing authority at Jammu. The endorsements further reveal that the licence had been renewed from 7me to 7me and stood renewed for the period from 30.01.1996 to 30.01.1999.
33.
Ex.R2, namely verifica7on report issued by Assistant Regional Transport Authority, Anantnag/Pulwama, also corroborates renewal of the said licence in favour of respondent No.1. Furthermore, Ex.R3 relied upon by the insurance company itself pertains to licence No.62088/J dated 09.12.1988 and is also in the name of Riyaz Ahmad.
34.
In these circumstances, the insurance company uAerly failed to establish that the licence produced by respondent No.1 was fake, fabricated or invalid. Mere produc7on of some record pertaining to another licence number was wholly insufficient to discharge the burden cast upon the insurer under Sec7on 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
35.
Learned Tribunal, therefore, rightly concluded that no breach of terms and condi7ons of the insurance policy stood proved and consequently the insurer could not avoid its statutory liability. 36.
Accordingly, FAO Nos.1662 to 1665 of 2001 filed by the insurance company are hereby dismissed.
37.
As a result, FAO Nos.66 and 67 of 2002 filed by the claimants stand partly allowed in the manner indicated above, whereas FAO Nos.1662 to 1665 of 2001 filed by the insurance company stand dismissed. 38.
The enhanced compensa7on along with interest shall be payable jointly and severally by all the respondents, though primary liability to sa7sfy the award shall remain that of the insurance company. 39.
A photocopy of this judgment be placed on the files of all connected cases. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 13.05.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes/No Whether reportable?
Yes/No Uploaded on.: 13.05.2026