F.A.O.NO. 918 OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 918 OF 2010 Date of decision:27th August, 2010 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Sohan Dei and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the quantum on the ground that an application had been filed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for defences on all grounds, particularly in view of the fact that the owner and driver remained ex parte on 9.11.2009. The Tribunal has not decided the application under Section 170 of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would contend that the Court has found the negligence to have been established and concedes that the insurer will not question the issue of negligence and it would be satisfied if the case were to be considered on the question of quantum only. The Tribunal F.A.O.NO. 918 OF 2010 2 is bound to pass an order in a case where the application is filed under Section 170 of the Act. The grievance of the appellant is justified and I therefore, allowed the appellant to argue on the issue of quantum. 2. The deceased was 40 years old and was a bachelor. The claimants were mother and brother. The deceased income was taken as Rs. 2,400/- per month and the Tribunal provided for contribution of 2/3rd to the mother. While rejecting the claim of the brother who was a major, as a dependent on the deceased person, the Tribunal adopted a Multiplier of 14 and granted the compensation. Learned counsel would contend that the dependency ought not to have been taken as 2/3rd the amount. Further the mother was 70 years of age and the choice of multiplier must have been made to depend only on the age of the claimants. There has been recent dispensation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121; where-in an attempt to bring about homogeneity, it has suggested that in cases of claims by a mother where there is no other dependent, the deduction for personal expenses must be taken as 50% and for a person aged between 40 and 50, it has provided for a Multiplier of 14. I adopt the formula and would take the contribution to the mother as Rs. 1,200/- per month and the yearly dependence is taken as Rs. 14,400/-. Adopting a multiplier of 14, the compensation payable would have been Rs. 2,01,600/-. I would award Rs. 9500/- under the conventional F.A.O.NO. 918 OF 2010 3 heads for loss of love and affection, loss to estate and funeral expenses which brings the amount to Rs. 2,16,100/-.I round it off to Rs. 2,16,000/-. The award of the Tribunal shall stand modified and reduced to the above extent. Having regard to the fact that the claimant is an old person the whole amount may be directed to be withdrawn, if it has not already been done. The appeal is allowed to the above extent only. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 27th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik