FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 209 Date of decision: 27.08.2026 1. FAO-1576-2001 CHARANJEET KAUR AND OTHERS ....Appellants Versus NIRMAL SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents 2. FAO-750-2001 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. ....Appellants Versus CHARANJEET KAUR AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate and Mr.Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the appellant-insurance company in FAO-750-2001 and for respondent No.3 in FAO-1576-2001. Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.7 in FAO-750-2001. Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advocate (Amicus curiae) for appellants in FAO-1576-2001 and for respondents No.1 to 5 in FAO-750-2001. Notice to respondents No.1 and 2 in FAO-1576-2001 has been dispensed with. Service of respondent No.6 has been dispensed with vide order dated 16.08.2016 in FAO-750-2001. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. The matter is being taken up in the post lunch session. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.09.02 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M) - 2- 2. The aforesaid two appeals have been preferred against the Award dated 17.11.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short “Tribunal”) in MACT Case No. 260 of 2000 in a petition under Section 166/171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”). FAO-750-2001 has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the liability fastened upon it by the Tribunal to satisfy the Award, whereas FAO-1576-2001 has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation on account of death of Baljit Singh in a motor vehicle accident. Vide the impugned Award, a sum of Rs.3,27,000/- has been awarded to claimants No.1 to 4 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 10.11.99 on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-46/6877 driven by respondent No.1 Nirmal Singh as alleged?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved the petitioner/claimants are entitled to compensation. If so how much and from whom? OPR 3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident?OPR. 4. Relief. 4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal under issue No.1, held that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending truck bearing No.HR-46-6877, resulting in the death of Baljit Singh. Under issue No.2, it was held that claimants No.1 to 4, who are AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.09.02 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M) - 3- the wife, minor children and mother of the deceased were held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.3,27,000/- as compensation but it was held that claimant No.5-Manjit Kaur, who is the sister of the deceased is not entitled to any compensation as she was not Class-I legal heir of her brother. Under issue No.3, it was held that respondent No.1 was having a valid and effective driving licence and all the respondents were held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. 7. Feeling aggrieved, FAO-750-2001 has been preferred by the Insurance Company, while FAO-1576-2001 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 8. Learned counsel for insurance company argued that the Tribunal has gravely erred in holding that driver was possessing a valid and effective driving licence and the evidence on file has been misread and misconstrued. The Award is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel next contended that the compensation awarded to the claimants is on the higher side and same is liable to be reduced and he prayed that appeal in hand be accepted and insurance company be exonerated of its liability to indemnify the insured. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimants argued that inadequate compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. Income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side to which future prospects have not been added. The sister of the deceased was 21 years of age and she was also dependent upon her brother and merely because she was not a class-I legal heir, compensation cannot be denied to her as she shall be deemed to be dependent AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.09.02 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M) - 4- upon her brother under the Act. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other, 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.7/owner argued that the Tribunal has appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while coming to the conclusion that the driver was possessing a valid and effective driving licence and no interference in the impugned Award is thus called for and he sought dismissal of the appeal. Issue of liability 11. While giving finding whether the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence or not, learned Tribunal has held as under:- “Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 had argued that Nirmal Singh, respondent No. 1 driver of the offending vehicle No. HR-46/6877 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident and the driving licence issued by the District Transport Officer, Amritsar, was fake and thus the United India Insurance Company, respondent No.3 was not liable to pay any compensation. In support of his plea learned counsel for respondent No.3 has examined Rajpal Singh Clerk of the office of District Transport Officer, Amritsar and Sh. A. P. S. Sandhu, District Transport Officer, Amritsar. RW1 Rajpal Singh had produced before the court the summoned record pertaiing to the period 16.4.1992 to 21.4.1992 of driving licence of respondent No.1 Nirmal Singh which is stated to have been issued from the District Transport Officer Amritasr. It is stated by him that driving licence, photo copy of which is Ex. R1 in the name of Nirmal Singh was never issued by the District Transport Officer, Amritsar. It is further stated by him that an enquiry had been conducted in their office regarding issuance of the licences in which no fee was deposited and regarding this non-payment of fee A Certificate, mark A was issued by their AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.09.02 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M) - 5- office, which bears signatures of Sh. Rajinder Singh Bhatt, Cashier and counter- signed by the District Transport Officer. Perusal of Mark A (Ex. 4) which had been proved by the District Transport Officer. Shri A.P.S. Sandhu, shows that requisite fee in respect of driving licence No. 15983 dated 16.11.1992 in favour of Nirmal Singh son of Sucha Singh had not been deposited by the licence-holder, as per office record and on the basis of the report made by the Cashier, the District Transport Officer had made a report that view of the report a requisite fee had not been deposited by the licence holder and the said licence is not genuine and has not been issued by this office. This is the ground on the basis of which learned counsel for respondent No.3 had argued that driving licence issued in the name of Nirmal Singh, respondent No. 1 was fake one. In cross- examination when this witness was confronted with entry No.5983 made in the record brought by him, he admitted that in the record endorsement has been made in the name of Nirmal Singh son of Such Singh resident of Baba Chownk. Beriwala, Amritsar and the same address was noted on the driving licence. Ex. R1 and entry No.5982 bears the stamp and initials of the District Transport Officer, Amritsar. It is also admitted by him that on entry No.5983 in the name of Nirmal Singh respondent No. 1. there is a stamp of District Transport Officer, which bears signatures of some officer whose signatures he failed to identify as he had not worked with him during the period 15.4.1995. He had admitted that as per record Nirmal Singh son of Sucha Singh was eligible to drive heavy transport vehicle. It is also admitted by him that renewal entries with regard to the aforesaid licence had been made by his office and these renewal entires were entered at serial Nos.6186, 6185 and so many other entries were also made in the register. This register was for issuance of new licence as well as for subsequently renewal of the same but no such entry has been made from which it could be assumed that the driving licence issued by this office was false and bogus. This witness has admitted that no driving licence in the name of any other person had been issued against serial No. 5893 for heavy transport vehicle. Thus from his statement it is clear that name of respondent No. 1. was mentioned in the relevant register and his driving licence has been issued by the authority. It has also come that the Motor Vehicles Authorities had been making renewal entries with regard to the renewal licences on this register which were stated to be containing fake driving licences. The genuineness of the driving licence had been challenged as no prescribed fee had been deposited in the Govt. Treasury. 25. RW2 A.P.S. Santhu, District Transport Officer, Amritsar had stated that he had brought the register regarding issuance of the driving licences on 16.4.1992 with serials No. 5801 to 6186 but has stated that the same had not AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.09.02 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M) - 6- been prepared by him. He further deposed that their office apprehended tampering of some driving licences and therefore, issued a list regarding doubtful driving licences which was mark RB and the register brought by him was regarding the doubtful cases. He further stated that in the list. Ex.RD at serial No.27, he had also made a report with regard to non-deposit of the fee of the licence issued in the name of Nirmal Singh respondent No.1 and this report/certificate Ex.R4 has been duly signed by him. In the cross-examination he has admitted to have issued certificate Ex. R4, regarding non-depositing of the fee by respondent No. 1, on the basis of the report of the cashier and Sectional Officer and the report bears Signature. He had admitted that there was an entry at Serial No.5983 in the name of Nirmal Singh son of Sucha Singh. He stated that he cannot say whether above said driving licence issued in the name of Nirmal Singh, respondent No 1. was genuine or fake one. Thus from his statement, it is clear that he was not sure about fakeness or genuineness of the driving licence. When all the particulars in the name of respondent No. 1. Nirmal Singh were mentioned in the register maintained by the office in daily working then the plea regarding genuineness of the driving licence cannot be entertained. It was the duty of the District Transport Authority to have established beyond doubt that driving licence. Ex.R1 issued in the name of respondent No.1 was not genuine and was fake one. Perusal of driving licence. Ex. R1 shows that the same had been renewed w.e.f. 18.8.1998 to 17.8.2001 by the Regional Transport Authority, Ambala and when this accident had taken place, respondent No.1 was holding a renewed driving licence. Thus, on the alleged date of accident, respondent No.1 cannot be said to be holding a fake driving licence. In Authority, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Such Singh and others. 1994(1) Punjab Law Reporter 140 it has been held by the Double Bench of our own Hon'ble High Court that, if a licence renewed though originally it was fake licence it gets its validity. The Insurance Company would be able to reimburse the insured if accident was caused by the driver and employee of the insured possessing a licence which was duly renewed. But the said findings of the Double Bench of our Hon,ble High Court in the case Such Singh's (Supra) have been reversed by the Full Bench of our own Hon’ble High Court in case National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Santro Devi and others 1996 (3) Punjab Law Reporter 667 wherein it has been held that the insured bonafidely believing in the validity of a forged driving licence employing the holder of a fake driving licence renewed by a competent authority, would not amount to violation of the conditions of contract or of insurance policy. It would not be violating either conditions of indemnity or the Insurance policy or the contract or violation of any statutory provisions. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.09.02 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M) - 7- Under these circumstances merely employing a driver with a forged driving licence would not absolve the insurer of its liability. In the absence of policy of the provisions of the Act by the insured, the insurance company would not be discharged of its liability from indemnifying the insurer or of its statutory liability to third party or its contractual liability to third party. But in authority National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Santo Devi and others. 1998 ACJ 116 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Insurance Company cannot refuse to meet its liability qua third party for any act or omission bonafidely or otherwise committed by the insured or its liability inasmuch as third party, for whose benefit the insurance has been provided is not a privy to any breach as being not in control of the act or conduct of the insured or its employee or insurer. Thus, the insurance company cannot refuse to meet its liability qua third party". Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santro Devi's case' (Supra). I am of the view that Insurance Company cannot absolve from its liability. This issue is decided accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the respondent No.3.” 12. As such, Insurance Company led evidence to the effect that requisite fee while obtaining driving licence bearing No.5983 dated 16.11.1992 had not been deposited in the office of the Licensing Authority and as per version of Insurance Company, the driving licence had not been issued by the said authority and it was fake. To prove this fact, insurance company had examined RW1-Rajpal Singh and RW2 A.P.S. Sandhu, District Transport Officer. However, RW2 has admitted that there is an entry at Serial No.5983 in the driving licence issuing register in the name of respondent No.1-Nirmal Singh and he cannot say whether the said driving licence issued in favour of respondent No.1-Nirmal Singh was genuine or fake, which shows that RW2 was not sure whether the driving licence is genuine or fake. Learned Tribunal thus rightly observed that when all the particulars in the name of respondent No.1-Nirmal Singh had been mentioned in the register maintained by the office, the plea regarding genuineness of the driving licence cannot be entertained and it was the duty of District Transport Authority to AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.09.02 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M) - 8- have established beyond doubt that driving licence Ex. R1 issued in favour of respondent No.1-Nirmal Singh was not genuine and was fake. The licence Ex. R1 had been subsequently renewed by RTA, Ambala from 18.08.1998 to 17.08.2001, when the accident took place. As such, it is established that relevant entry had been made in the name of respondent No.1-Nirmal Singh, while issuing driving licence and Tribunal thus rightly came to the conclusion that the driving licence relied upon by respondent No.1 was genuine and not fake and no ground to interfere in the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal is made out and finding on Issue No.3 is affirmed. 13. However, even if it is assumed that the driving licence produced by the driver was fake, still insurance company is required to establish willful breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured before it can be exonerated of the liability to indemnify the insured. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022 ACJ 1868, Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Company Limited and others, has held that owner of the vehicle is expected to check driving skills of the driver and not to run to the licensing authority to verify genuineness of the driving licence before appointing a driver and therefore, once the owner is satisfied that driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from him to verify genuineness of the driving licence issued to the driver and the direction of ‘pay and recover’ given by the High Court was set aside and it was held that Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured and it cannot recover the amount from the owner/insured. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Law Finder Doc ID # 2790918, Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. And others, has also held that owner of the vehicle is not expected AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.09.02 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M) - 9- to verify the authenticity of the driving licence from the licensing authority and he can only rely upon the licence produced by the prospective driver seeking employment. In case, Insurance Company seeks to avoid liability or to get “pay and recover rights” against the insured/owner on the ground of driving licence being fake, the Insurance Company must establish that the breach was on the part of the insured, meaning thereby, the insured had deliberately committed a breach by entrusting the vehicle to a driver who had a fake driving licence or that the owner did not employ due diligence at the time of handing over the vehicle. It has been further held that in the absence of pleading or substantiation that owner allowed the driver to drive a vehicle knowing the licence to be fake, or failed to employ due diligence in the driver’s employment/entrustment, the High Court erred in issuing pay and recover directions against the insured-owner. It has been further held that Insurance Company must prove the willful breach of the policy condition i.e. entrusting the vehicle to a driver without a valid licence by the insured in case it wants right of recovery against the insured, even if the driver’s licence is fake. Looked from any angle, insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured and there is no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal in this regard. ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION IN FAO-1576-2001 , CHARANJEET KAUR VS. NIRMAL SINGH AND OTHERS:- 14. Coming to the assessment of compensation, the term `just compensation’ has been elaborated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 867 (SC), Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another, and it has been held that while assessing compensation in a motor AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.09.02 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M) - 10- accident claims case, the Tribunal should award compensation which appears to be just. The expression “which appears to be just” vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to determination of compensation. It has been further held that although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the persons liable to pay compensation and that determination of compensation must be based on certain data establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the victim or dependents. It has been further held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factors for determining the compensation. As such, compensation is required to be assessed by taking into consideration above- said parameters. 15. Deceased was a driver and as per version of claimants, he was getting salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal assessed his income to be Rs.2,400/- per month. However, it is not in dispute that deceased was a truck driver. The accident in question had taken place on 10.11.1999 and some amount of guess work thus has to be applied while assessing the monthly income of the deceased and his income cannot be assessed merely by treating him as a casual labourer on the basis of minimum wages. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, Chandra alias Chander alias Chanda Ram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, has held that merely because claimants are unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased is not a AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.09.02 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M) - 11- ground to discard the oral evidence and in such cases, the Court is required to ensure just compensation based on preponderance of probabilities. Minimum wage notification may serve as a yardstick but cannot be the sole basis for assessing the income. Moreover, it is also well settled that where the victim/deceased belongs to unorganized sector, strict proof of income is not mandatory and notional income can be reasonably assessed based on the social status and facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, income of the deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. 16. Tribunal has held that deceased at the time of his death was 32-33 years of age and as such, 40% amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes his income to Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,200/-). 17. Claim petition has been filed by wife, two minor children, sister and mother. However, Tribunal has held that sister is not the Class-I legal heir and denied compensation to her. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 309, Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors, has held that a legal representative is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child. The term legal representative under Motor Vehicles Act should not be given a narrow interpretation to exclude those persons as claimants who were dependent on the deceased’s income and the father and sister, being financially dependent were legal representatives under the Act entitling them to compensation. Accordingly, it is held that claimant No.5-Manjit Kaur, who was 21 years of age, was also dependent upon her deceased brother. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.09.02 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M) - 12- 18. As such, deceased has left behind five dependents and 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased as per law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and after deducting the same, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.3,150/- (Rs.4,200/- – Rs.1,050/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.37,800/- (Rs.3,150/- × 12) to which multiplier of 16 has to be applied in view of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), and after applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs.6,04,800/- (Rs.37,800/- × 16). 19. As per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), a sum of Rs.70,000/- is payable towards conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses. However, the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) was passed in the year 2017 and taking into consideration the price index prevalent in the year 1999 when the accident took place, claimant No.1, who is wife of deceased is held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate. Likewise, claimants No.2 to 5 are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- each for loss of parental and filial consortium, in view of law laid down in Nanu Ram’s case (supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.7,74,800/-. 20. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under:- S. No. Heads of Compensation Amount 1. Age of deceased 32-33 years 2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,000/- AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.09.02 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M) - 13- 3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1,200/- 4. Monthly income after adding future prospects Rs.4,200/- 5. Deduction towards personal and living expenses @ 1/4th Rs.1,050/- 6. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.3,150/- 7. Annual loss of dependency Rs.37,800/- 8. Multiplier 16 9. Total loss of dependency Rs.6,04,800/- 10. Loss of consortium to claimant No.1 (wife) Rs.50,000/- 11. Loss of parental and filial consortium to claimants No.2 to 5 Rs.1,20,000/- 12. Total Compensation Rs.7,74,800/- (rounded off to Rs.7,75,000/-) 13. Interest 9% 21. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company i.e. FAO-750-2001 is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs, while the appeal filed by the claimants i.e FAO-1576-2001 is partly accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,48,000/- (Rs.7,75,000/- - Rs.3,27,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 11.2.2000 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.2 to 5, while balance amount be paid to claimant No.1 (wife) along with proportionate interest. 22. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of this judgment AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.09.02 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M) - 14- to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment. 23. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 24. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 27.08.2026 JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.09.02 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment