NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. NARESH RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The owner of the vehicle was examined, in this case, who gave evidence to the effect that he had verified the driving licence and he believed the same to be true and he did not suspect that it was fake. In the case of excluding liability for an insurer, the deliberate breach by the insured is alone material. The bona fide belief of the insured is sufficient to protect him and secure to him a right of indemnity, in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Versus Cross Objection No.4-CII of 2001 in/and Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297. The liability cast on the insurer, under the circumstances, is justified.

(2.) There is a cross objection for enhancement of compensation for the claimants, who are parents to the deceased, who was a bachelor, aged 24 years. He was said to be a circle manager in some private company and drawing a salary of Rs.4,000/-. The Tribunal provided for 1/3rd deduction for his personal expenses, adopted a multiplier of 16 and granted a compensation. The learned counsel would contend that as per the judgment in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another-2009 ACJ 1298, the multiplier ought to have been 18. The Tribunal after all provided for a 1/3rd deduction only and did not take 50% deduction as contemplated in Sarla Verma. It cannot, therefore, make a difference if 50% were to be deducted and then a higher multiplier to be taken. I, therefore, hold the loss of dependence as determined by the Tribunal as correct. The deceased met with an accident on 23.04.1997 and he died on 26.07.1997. The counsel therefore states that he had incurred medical expenses and he had also to be transported ultimately and transportation expenses were also not provided. In the absence of any documentary proof, I would provide for the medical expenses at Rs.2,500/- and another Rs.2,500/- towards transportation expenses. The Tribunal had also not granted any award for loss to estate and funeral expenses. The parents lost their son and they were also to be provided for compensation for loss of love and affection.

(3.) I would provide for Rs.2,500/- for each one of those heads and for love and affection, to each parents, I would accord to them Rs.2,500/-. In all, Cross Objection No.4-CII of 2001 in/and therefore, there will be an addition of Rs.15,000/-. The same shall be liable to be paid by the insurer @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the payment. The cross objection is allowed to the above extent.