ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SAROJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In FAO No. 5556 of 2002, the Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the liability cast on it on the ground that the driver's licence as said to have been issued at Hyderabad was proved to be fake. But judging by the fact that a renewal had been made elsewhere at Patiala which was found to be genuine, the Tribunal provided for a liability to the insurer only. It has come through judicial pronouncements that if a licence is fake even a genuine renewal cannot make a difference, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance v. Divinder Singh,2007 8 SCC 342. If it had been merely a case of examining the fact of a renewal of licence of a fake licence, the contention of the insurer would have carried weight. We have, in this case, the evidence of the owner, who has stated that at the time when he employed him, he was shown the licence produced by the driver and he verified to himself that the licence, which stood renewed, was genuine. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that although he had known that the original licence had been issued at Hyderabad, he had not checked up with the Licensing Authority at Hyderabad. This, the Learned Counsel for the insurer, would contend as going to show that the owner could not have had a bona fide opinion that the licence was true.

(2.) In my view, it is asking for an impossible for the owner to go after various licensing authorities and assure to himself that they had been issued only by that authority. If under the scheme of the enactment a renewal could not have been done by another registering officer without securing a 'No Objection Certificate' from the original issuing office, then a person, who assures to himself that the renewal was validly done, is also entitled to assume that the official duties relating to the manner of approving renewals would have been gone through. We have come by a sad situation where public authorities do not carry out statutory mandates with the seriousness that they deserve. If the authority at Patiala should have ensured to itself whether the licence issued by the authority at Hyderabad was genuine or not before giving a renewal and it failed to exercise such a caution, an owner employing a person ought not to be said to be negligent in his conduct in not looking for proof whether the original registering authority had actually issued such a licence. The statement of the owner that he was satisfied by an enquiry at the renewal office is, in my view, sufficient to protect him, as stated so in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh, 2004 3 SCC 297 .

(3.) The case would therefore require consideration only for a consideration for enhancement made in the independent appeal filed by the claimants. The case was for a death of a 9 years old boy and the claimant was a widow. The widow has four other daughters and one son and the Learned Counsel would plead that a mother's expectations especially after the death of her own husband could have been extraordinarily high with the son. Traditionally a baton of family leadership follows the male line and the death of the boy has left the family rudderless. The compensation must therefore be worked out on what the son's presence would have meant in the family of a widow and four daughters. I am afraid, I cannot however accede to an argument that the death of a male child must afford a larger compensation than death of a female child, as sought to be contended by the Counsel for the claimants. This thought is obnoxious to entertain in the States of Punjab and Haryana especially where already the sex ratio of male to female is grossly skewed and even a psychological belief that a son is more important than a daughter ought not find judicial affirmation through a judgment. I would discard such an emotional plea and look at it only from the stand point from what is legally permissible and we have the guidance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Vasant Kalgutkar v. Murad Shaikh and others, 2010 AIR(SC) 40 where the Court provided for a uniform application of a principle providing for compensation for children between the age group of 5 to 10 at 7 2 lakhs. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was making a reference also to a judgment in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 2001 8 SCC 197 that provided for an increased compensation of Rs. 3.40 lakhs for children aged about 10. The decision was in the context of special circumstance of most of the children being the wards of employees of TISCO, which had an employment policy of providing employment to children of their own workman. This, the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself recognized to be a very special circumstance and, therefore, would not apply the yardstick provided by Lata Wadhwa in Priya Vasant Kalgutkar. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court constitutes a binding precedent that the special circumstance which the Hon'ble Supreme Court was referring to must be a circumstance that will have a bearing to a sure prospect of employment and different treatment. I cannot merely base my assessment of a special circumstance to an alleged cultural perception of persons who believe a male child to be more important than female. On the other hand, to a mother a distinction in sex of children could never be a matter of importance. A girl is as much an apply of eye as a son could be. The Tribunal has already provided for a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs which I will retain. The appeal filed for enhancement is, therefore, dismissed and the appeal filed by the insurer is also dismissed.