Lilawati and Ors. Vs Subhas and Ors.

The solitary issue raised by counsel for the appellantinsurance company relates to validity of licence. It has been contended that in terms of verification report Ex.R-5, original driving licence No.8817/179 was found to be fake. However, as per report Ex.P-3 made

¶18

by licencing officer of Hisar, the licence of respondent-Subhash is

¶19

DINESH KUMAR 2025.03.07 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

FAO-532-1995 & FAO-386-1995

¶21

proved to have been renewed from 1982 to 1994 from the office of licencing authority, Hisar.

¶22

Counsel for the appellant submits that as per settled law, an invalid/fake licence cannot attain legality merely by renewal thereof. However, at the same time, counsel for the appellant is not in a position to dispute that the report Ex.R-5, though was produced by the insurance company, but the same was never proved as the author thereof was never examined.

¶23

In view thereof, this Court does not find that Ex.R-5 i.e. the verification report can be relied upon. So far as report Ex.P-3 is concerned, the same does not say that the licence was originally a fake licence. In view thereof, reliance upon New India Insurance Company vs. Kamla and others reported as (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 342 is misplaced.

¶24

In view of law laid down by 3 Judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh reported as (2004) 3 SCC 297 , onus to prove that the licence is fake is upon the insurer. The insurer has to prove the same by leading positive evidence. The evidence not only was discrepant, but also was found wanting for mode of proof, thus, it cannot be relied upon. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Tribunal with respect to legality of the licence and the liability put upon the insurance company while deciding issue No.3. In view of above, the appeal i.e. FAO-3861995 preferred by the insurance company is dismissed.

¶25

Counsel however submits that interest has been awarded @ 12% and the same is exorbitant.

¶26

DINESH KUMAR 2025.03.07 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

FAO-532-1995 & FAO-386-1995

¶28

Keeping in view that the interest needs to be awarded at reasonable rate, the same is reduced to 9% payable for the period commencing from the date of filing the application till the date of actual realization. Needless to say nothing paid shall be set off and adjusted.

¶29

The other appeal has been preferred at the instance of claimants who are seeking enhancement. There is no dispute with respect to the monthly income of the deceased i.e. 2634/-. The same has been rightly assessed. The deceased being Government employee, therefore, counsel for the claimants has rightly submitted that the dependency has been wrongly assessed by deducting 1/3 which should have been 1/4 as there are four claimants. Similarly, nothing has been awarded under the head of future prospects in terms of law laid down in ‘National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others’, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 41 years, 30% future prospects need to be awarded. Multiplier also needs to be altered from 12 to 14. All the four claimants are further entitled for loss of consortium @ Rs.48,000/- each. Further amount of Rs.18,000/- is awarded under each head of loss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶30

With the aforesaid modification the impugned award, appeal preferred by the claimants i.e. FAO-532-1995 is disposed off. 9. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.

¶31

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 03.03.2025 Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No

¶32

DINESH KUMAR 2025.03.07 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Lilawati and Ors. v. Subhas and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lilawati and Ors. v. Subhas and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita and Ors. Vs Union of India

Kamlesh and Others Vs Union of India and Another

(O&M) UOI Vs Sanjay Kumar

Sukhwinder Kumar Alias Sukhwinder Kumar Sharma Vs Manju Khullar and Ors.

Kashmir Singh Vs Haryana Milk Food Ltd. and Ors.

Sukhdev Singh Alias Dev Vs Rajinder Singh