FAO-517-2003 ( IN TH 236 Shaila Mittal and State of Haryan 2.
FAO-1448 National Insuranc Smt. Shaila Mitta CORAM : HON Present: Mr. for t for r Mr. Mr. for for r Mr. for r for r Non for r *** AMARINDER S 1. This 1448 of 2003. Th compensation an challenging the 2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR FAO Dat tal and others Versus na and others 1448-2003 (O&M)
surance Company Ltd. Versus a Mittal and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No.517 of 2 for respondents No.1 to 3 in FAO N Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate Mr. Brij Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No.1448 of for respondent No.4 in FAO No.517 Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma, DAG, Hary for respondents No.1 and 2 in FAO N for respondents No.4 and 5 in FAO N None for respondent No.3 in FAO N for respondent No.6 in FAO No.144 ****
DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two ap 03. The former has been filed by the c ion and the latter has been prefer g the impugned award dated 28.10.20 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH FAO No.517 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.01.2026 ...Appellants
... Respondents ...Appellant
... Respondents
MARINDER SINGH GREWAL 17 of 2003 and AO No.1448 of 2003. vocate 448 of 2003 and o.517 of 2003. , Haryana FAO No.517 of 2003 and FAO No.1448 of 2003. AO No.517 of 2003 and o.1448 of 2003.
RAL) wo appeals bearing FAO Nos.517 an y the claimants seeking enhancement o preferred by the insurance compan 8.10.2002 passed by the learned Moto 517 and ment of ompany d Motor PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.30 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-517-2003 ( Accident Claim Tribunal) whereb has been allowe interest @9% pe realization on ac motor vehicular directed to be pai that the driver o offending vehicle accident and ther same from the d 2. Lear and for responde the compensatio Rs.17,477/- per m Nothing was pro estate in terms o Verma Vs. DTC Sethi (2017) 16 S 3. Per FAO No.1448 of that the acciden travelling on the the bus, he fell d Since the decea 2003 (O&M) -2- Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinaf hereby the claim petition preferred by allowed while granting a compensati 9% per annum from the date of filin on account of death of husband of icular accident that took place on 16.0 be paid by the respondents before it jo iver of the bus bearing No.HR-39/49 vehicle) was not holding a valid drivi nd therefore, the appellant-insurance c driver and owner of the offending Learned counsel for the appellant- pondents No.1 to 3 in FAO No.1448 nsation, the learned Tribunal took per month whereas the gross income provided towards future prospects rms of the judgments passed by the TC (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Nationa 16 SCC 680. Therefore, he prays fo Per contra, learned counsel for the 448 of 2003 and for respondent No.4 ccident took place due to negligen on the roof of the bus. In the process fell down on the road and received in deceased was travelling on the roo ereinafter referred to as the learne rred by respondents No.1 to 3-claiman ensation of Rs.20,48,809/- along wi of filing of the petition till the date o nd of respondent No.1, who died in 16.09.2000 and the said amount wa re it jointly and severally on the groun 39/4949 (hereinafter referred to as th d driving licence at the time of allege ance company is entitled to recover th nding vehicle. -claimants in FAO No.517 of 200 1448-2003 submits that while awardin took the income of the deceased a ncome of the deceased was Rs.19,477/ spects, loss of consortium and loss o y the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sar tional Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prana rays for enhancement of compensation or the appellant-insurance company t No.4 in FAO No.517 of 2003 submi gligence of the deceased, as he wa rocess of getting down from the roof o injuries, which proved fatal to him he roof of the bus, he was neither learned laimants ng with date of ied in a unt was ground o as the alleged over the of 2003 warding ased as 9,477/-. loss of Sarla ranay sation. pany in submits he was roof of l to him. either a PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.30 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-517-2003 ( passenger nor a compensation. F licence at the tim Licensing Autho licence No.B/760 Raipur. In suppo by the Hon’ble Lehru and other assessed the in modification of t 4. Mr. of the vehicle ha with respect to the insurer to esta cannot be expect driving licence w support of his c Supreme Court in Vs. United Indi company has mis was not holding liable to pay the c 5. I ha paper book as we 2003 (O&M) -3- nor a third party and therefore, the cl ion. Furthermore, the driver of the bu the time of accident as is evident from Authority, Raipur wherein it is spe .B/7606 was neither issued nor rene support of his contention, reliance is ble Supreme Court in United Indi thers (2003) 3 SCC 338. It is also su he income of the deceased on hi on of the award. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma, DAG, Har icle has taken reasonable care in empl ct to the fact that the driver has a val to establish that driver of the vehicle expected to go beyond that to the exte ence with the licensing authority befor his contention, he relies upon the j ourt in Civil Appeal Nos.1999-2000 o India Insurance Co. Ltd. decided as miserably failed to establish that th lding a valid driving licence at the tim y the compensation as awarded by the I have heard learned counsel for t as well as the case laws cited with the the claimants were not entitled to an the bus was not holding a valid drivin nt from the Ex.R-4 i.e. report from th is specifically mentioned that drivin r renewed by the Licensing Authorit nce is placed upon the judgment passe India Insurance Company Ltd. V also submitted that the learned Tribun on higher side and therefore, seek , Haryana submits that once the own employing a person to drive a vehic a valid driving licence, the onus is o ehicle was not duly licenced. The own e extent of verifying genuineness of th y before hiring services of the driver. the judgment passed by the Hon’ 2000 of 2020 titled as Nirmala Kotha ecided on 04.03.2020. The insuranc that the driver of the offending vehic the time of accident and therefore, it by the learned Tribunal. l for the parties and have perused th their able assistance. to any driving rom the driving uthority, t passed d. Vs. ribunal , seeks e owner vehicle us is on owner ss of the river. In ’ble othari surance vehicle it is sed the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.30 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-517-2003 ( 6. Desp he was a passen compensation. Meena Devi 201 “1 High hesi abso cour num dow liab resp the 18. liab unli awa the of p 7. As insurance compa valid driving lic compliance of o detailed report d General Manage response to the Fatehabad, the R 2003 (O&M) -4- Despite the fact that the deceased w assenger and the insurance company A Division Bench of this Court i 2012 (2) RCR (Civil) 334 has held a 17. In view of the said judgment a High Courts including the Hon'b hesitation to hold that travelling on absolve the Insurance Company of court in Samundri Roadways Co. number of judgments mentioned a down good law. We are of the opini liable to indemnify the insured to respect of the claims arising ou the passengers travelling on the roo 18. In the present case, one passe liability of the Insurance Company unlimited. Thus, the Insurance Com award, as it falls within the maxim the Insurance Company has u passengers. As regards the argument of lear company in FAO No.1448 of 2003 t ing licence at the time of accident, e of order dated 13.11.2025, the re port dated 15.01.2026 by way of af anager, Haryana Roadways, Fatehab to the letter issued by the General Regional Transport Officer, Chha ased was travelling on roof of the bu mpany is liable to satisfy the award o ourt in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. held as under:- ent and the consistent view of variou on'ble Supreme Court, we have n on the roof top of the bus, does n y of its liability. The judgment of th Co. Pvt. case (supra) is contrary ed above, therefore, it does not la pinion that the Insurance Company d to pay the compensation even g out death or injury suffered b roof top. assenger lost his life. Therefore, th pany in respect of such passenger Company is liable to satisfy the enti aximum sum of compensation, whic s undertaken to pay in respe f learned counsel for the appellan 2003 that the driver was not holding cident, it is pertinent to note that the respondent-State has furnished of affidavit of Sh. Mohinder Kuma atehabad wherein it is stated that eneral Manager, Haryana Roadway , Chhattisgarh has stated as under:- bus, ward of Ltd. v. arious ve no es not of this ary to ot lay any is ven in ed by e, the ger is entire hich espect pellant- olding a that in ished a Kumar, that in adways, PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.30 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-517-2003 ( avai the the dest Raip the r 8. Furt the appellant-ins could not show t Pepsu Road Tra SCC 217 has held "8. und vehi defe prov whe as t has Ther the the qual expe of th serv the com veri the 2003 (O&M) -5- “In this regard, it is stated available record has been conducte the driving licence No.B-7606/80 i the relevant register pertaining destroyed/damaged in the office o Raipur. Due to which, it is not poss the register in the said case. Furthermore, to prove the report Ex. insurance company, much less, l show that driving licence was invalid. Transport Corporation v. National held as under:- "8. In a claim for compensation, i under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) to take vehicle involved in the accident wa defence is taken, the onus is on proved that the licence possessed whether there is liability on the ins as the owner of the vehicle is conce has to check whether the drive Thereafter he has to satisfy him the driver. If satisfied in that re the owner had taken reasonable car qualified and competent to drive t expected to go beyond that, to the e of the driving licence with the lice services of the driver. However, the the time of insurance of the veh company requires the owner of the verified from the licensing authority the vehicle is otherwise invited tated that a thorough search of th ucted in this office for verification /80 issued on 15.10.1980. Howeve ing to the said licence has bee ce of the Regional Transport Offic possible to provide a verified copy ort Ex.R-4, no witness was examined b less, letter of investigator Ex.R3 als nvalid. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ional Insurance Company, (2013) 1 n, it is certainly open to the insur take a defence that the driver of th t was not duly licensed. Once such on the insurer. But even after it ssed by the driver was a fake on e insurer is the moot question. As fa oncerned, when he hires a driver, h river has a valid driving licenc himself as to the competence t regard also, it can be said th care in employing a person who ive the vehicle. The owner cannot b the extent of verifying the genuinene licensing authority before hiring th , the situation would be different if vehicle or thereafter the insuranc the vehicle to have the licence du ority or if the attention of the owner vited to the allegation that th of the tion of wever, been Office, opy of ined by R3 also Court in 13) 10 nsurer of the such a r it is e one, As far er, he cence. ce of d that ho is not be neness ng the t if at rance e duly ner of t the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.30 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-517-2003 ( licen the matt au desp his veri circ com 9. Sim Kothari’s case “ driv the inve beli driv driv the unre enqu the prov licen insu 13. emp driv issu sam auth 2003 (O&M) -6- licence issued to the driver employ the owner does not take appropria matter regarding the genuineness thority. That is what is explained despite such information with the ow his driver is fake, no action is take verification, then the insured w circumstances, the insurance co compensation. " Similar view is reiterated by the H se (supra) and the same is reproduce “12. While hiring a driver the em driver has a driving licence. If the d the face of it looks genuine, the em investigate into the authenticity of th lieve otherwise. If the employer fi drive the vehicle and has satisfie driving licence there would be no b the insurance company would be lia unreasonable to place such a hig enquiries with RTOs all over the co the driving licence. However, if th prove that the owner/insured was licence was fake or invalid and still insurance company would no longer 13. On facts, in the instant case, employed the driver, Dharmendra S driving licence. The driving licen issued by the licensing authority, S same could not be verified as the o authority deposed that the record ployed by him is a fake one and y priate action for verification of th ess of the licence from the licensin ned in Swaran Singh's case (supra). owner that the licence possessed b taken by the insured for appropria d will be at fault and, in suc company is not liable for th Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nirm roduced as under:- employer is expected to verify if th he driver produces a licence which o e employer is not expected to furth of the licence unless there is cause er finds the driver to be competent isfied himself that the driver has no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) an e liable under the policy. It would b high onus on the insured to mak e country to ascertain the veracity if the insurance company is able was aware or had notice that th still permitted the person to drive, th nger continue to be liable. ase, the appellant complainant ha dra Singh as driver after checking h icence was purported to have bee ty, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi, however, th the officer concerned of the licensin ord of the licence was not availab nd yet of the ensing ra). If sed by priate such r the rmal if the ich on urther use to tent to has a ) and uld be make city of ble to at the ve, the t had ng his been er, the ensing ilable PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.30 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-517-2003 ( with com whil and vera 10. In v find any illegalit respect to liabilit 11. Now would retain the Rs.17,477/- per prospects, make multiplier of 13 appellants is en totalling ₹1,45,20 and loss of esta Hon’ble Suprem compensation pa 12. The awarded by the l the date of filing company (FAO 2003) in equal ra 13. In v the learned Tribu 2003 (O&M) -7- with them. It is not the contenti company that the appellant complai while employing the driver. The dri and there was no reason for the ap veracity of the driver's licence.” In view of the aforesaid facts and c legality or infirmity in the award pas liability fastened upon the insurance co Now coming to the issue of enhance the income of the deceased as ass per month, apply an increase o make a deduction of 1/3rd towards of 13 to assess the annual dependenc is entitled to loss of consortium/lo ,45,200/- as well as ₹18,150/- each is f estate (escalation @ 10% every 3 upreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s ion payable to the appellants works ou The enhanced compensation i.e. ov y the learned Tribunal shall also attrac filing of the petition till realization, p FAO No.1448 of 2003) to the appel ual ratio. In view of the aforesaid facts and ci Tribunal is modified to the above ex tention of the respondent insuranc plainant is guilty of wilful negligenc e driver had been driving competent e appellant complainant to doubt th and circumstances, this Court does n rd passed by the learned Tribunal wi nce company to satisfy the award. nhancement of compensation, this Cou as assessed by the learned Tribunal ase of 30% thereon towards futu wards personal expenses and adopt ndency as Rs.23,62,932/-. Each of th /love and affection of ₹48,400/ ach is payable towards funeral expense ery 3 years as per law laid down b ’s case (supra). Thus, the tot rks out to ₹25,44,432/-. i.e. over and above the compensatio attract interest @7.5% per annum fro tion, payable by the appellant-insuranc appellants-claimants (FAO No.517 o and circumstances, the award passed b ove extent. The appeal preferred by th rance igence etently bt the oes not nal with is Court bunal at future adopt a h of the 00/-, xpenses own by e total ensation m from surance .517 of ssed by d by the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.30 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-517-2003 ( insurance compa by the claimants 14. Pend January 21, 202 Pankaj* 2003 (O&M) -8- ompany in FAO No.1448 of 2003 is d mants in FAO No.517 of 2003 is allow Pending application(s), if any, shall (AMA , 2026 Whether speaking/reaso Whether reportable 03 is dismissed and the appeal preferre s allowed. , shall also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE g/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No referred AL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.30 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh