FAO No.646 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.646 of 1988 Date of Decision. 06.01.2011 Om Parkash son of Jiwanda Mal Arora r/o ROA/35, Gali No.4, Rajgarh Colony Delhi 31 ......Appellant Versus Manohar Lal s/o Bishan Dass and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.4. 2. FAO No.915 of 1988 Manohar Lal s/o Bishan Dass and another ......Appellants Versus Hawa Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 two appeals are connected FAO No.915 of 1988 is for enhancement of compensation for death of a person, who was 25 years. FAO No.646 of 1988 is at the instance of the owner, who had FAO No.646 of 1988 -2- been saddled with liability rejecting his contention that the vehicle had been stolen by the person, who was driving the vehicle. The vehicle was on the relevant day being used for taking a marriage party to Delhi. 2. As regards the quantum, the deceased was 25 years of age and said to be a vegetable vendor. The claimants were parents and aged 70 & 52 years. The Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.36,000/-. I will take the income of a vegetable vendor to be Rs.750/- and after taking a deduction of 1/3rd, the contribution to the family would be Rs.500/- and apply a multiplier of 11 suitable to the age of the mother. The amount of compensation will be Rs.66,000/-. I will also provide for an additional amount of Rs.9,000/- towards the conventional heads and round off the compensation payable as Rs.75,000/-. There is a component of interest and the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company states that interest component may be excluded if it would be an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the same will be payable within a period of six weeks. 3. As regards even the liability cast on the owner, it was in evidence that the vehicle had been stolen and at the relevant time, the vehicle was not under the control of the owner. If the vehicle had been stolen and an accident takes place by a use in violation of terms of the policy, the defence under Section 149 will not be available to the insurance company. This aspect has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and several other Courts and this Court had also an occasion to dealt with the proposition of law arising from such a situation in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Raj Rani and FAO No.646 of 1988 -3- others in FAO No.4550 of 2002 dated 21.09.2010. The liability shall be on the insurance company. The award casting a liability on the owner is set aside. 4. Both the appeals are allowed and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is ordered in full quit of all claims in addition to what has already been awarded by the Tribunal. If the same is not paid within eight weeks, it will attract interest @7.5% from today. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 06, 2011 Pankaj*