FAO No. 3605 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3605 of 2010 Date of decision November 17, 2010 Jeewan Lal ....... Appellant Versus Smt. Lachho and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. S. K. Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. R. M. Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeal is by the owner who has been fastened with the liability for the claim arising out of death of a passenger on a mudguard of a tractor. The Insurance Company was exonerated on the ground that it was not liable to cover the risk to a passenger since a tractor is not designed to carry passengers nor was there a policy of insurance to cover such risk. 2. The Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company and determined compensation for death of a person aged 24 years who was said to be a mason earning Rs.300/- per day. The wife gave her evidence to the effect that he used to earn Rs.9,000/-. The Tribunal only partially accepted the evidence took the income to be Rs.3,000/- provided for a deduction of 1/3rd and took contribution to the family to Rs.2000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- annually and had adopted multiplier of 18 as FAO No. 3605 of 2010 2 suggested in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121 and determined the compensation. Both on the legal principles as regards liability and for compensation on the finding the Tribunal's approach is correct. This Court has also held in Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Gurmail Kaur in FAO No. 5063 of 2006 in order dated 24.8.2010 and New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Surender Kaur in FAO No.635 of 2005 order dated 1.9.2010 referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts as regards the issue of liability of an insurer for death or bodily injury to a person travelling on the mudguard of the tractor. This Court has taken the view that there could be no such liability for the insurer. 3. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 17 , 2010 archana