NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RAJBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the four appeals are connected as they arise out of the same accident. FAO Nos. 2888 and 2889 of 1996 are at the instance of the Insurance Company denying liability and FAO Nos. 3087 of 1996 and 445 of 1997 are at the instance of the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident.

(2.) As regards the contention of the Insurance Company that there had been no sufficient opportunity granted to the insurer to establish his defence that the driver did not have a valid driving licence, the contention is without merit for the Insurance Company did no more than produce a copy of a communication from the licensing authority that the licence was not genuine. If the insurer had not taken steps to produce the relevant records and failed to examine the official connected with the same, the Insurance Company will have to blame itself. In any event it is not even relevant for the issue of the genuineness or otherwise is invariably tested on the bona fides of the owner of the vehicle, for, Section 149 contemplates a situation of a violation of terms of policy by the owner/insured. The bona fides will again depend on what the owner believes to be true. There was evidence to the effect that he had verified the driving licence at the time when he employed the driver and he said that he believed the same to be true. The Tribunal has adverted to this aspect as well in its judgment. The insured cannot be, therefore, said to have committed any violation of terms of policy by engaging a person, who did not have a valid driving licence. The liability cast by the Tribunal shall, therefore, be maintained and the appeals by the Insurance Company in FAO Nos. 2888 and 2889 of 1996 on the issue of liability shall stand dismissed.

(3.) As regards the claim for compensation for injuries in FAO No. 3087 of 1996, the claimant namely Rajbir Singh had crush injuries on his foot and it was on record that he was hospitalized and remained under treatment for over 3 months. The doctor, who conducted a surgery on his crushed foot for reconstruction, have given evidence to the effect that he will have limping in his leg and that it would continue throughout his life. He had assessed his disability at 8%. While determining the compensation, the Tribunal took the evidence given by the claimant that he had incurred medical expenses, transport and other charges to the tune of Rs. 45,000/- and awarded the entire amount as claimed. As regards the pain and suffering and loss of earning capacity which the claimant was said to have incurred, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,60,000/- under the head 'special damage'. The overall sum determined was Rs. 2,05,000/-. The assessment of compensation for the nature of disability at Rs. 1,60,000/- towards special damage itself is more than what can normally be expected to be given and I would, therefore, not make any intervention for enhancement. The award passed already by the Tribunal is sustained and the appeal is dismissed.