FAO No.1554 of 1993 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.69-CII of 1993 in/and FAO No.1554 of 1993 Date of Decision: February 08, 2011 Darshan Singh and others ….Appellants Versus Jarnail Singh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Gurinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. A.S. Jatana, Advocate for the respondents/objectors. Mr. Raj Kumar Bishamboo, Advocate for respondent No.5. *** K. KANNAN, J.(ORAL) The appeal is at the instance of the owner and the driver who had been saddled with the liability for the award and exonerating the insurance company. The insurance company was let off on the ground that there had been a violation of the terms of the policy. The policy terms stated as regards the limitation of liability “for use only for carriage of passengers in accordance with the terms of the permit (Contract Carriage or State Carriage), issued within the meaning of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988”. The accident had taken place at a spot which was not covered in the route of the bus. Evidence of RW-1 with reference to the fact was that the place where accident was alleged to have been taken place did not fall within the route of the permit. The Tribunal while casting liability on the insured and the driver - 1- FAO No.1554 of 1993 and exonerating the insurer, reasoned that the policy was only for use in accordance with the permit and since the permit conditions had been violated, there arose a violation of the term of the policy also. I cannot find fault with such reasoning. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the driver had taken the vehicle on an unauthorized route and therefore, he could not be stated to have been guilty of violation of terms of the policy. I cannot accept this argument since it conflicts with pleadings and the owner himself had not even given any evidence for such a contention. The person who has been examined on the side of respondents had admitted that accident had taken place where the bus did not have a route permit. The appellant had actually stated in his pleadings that the vehicle had not at all been involved in the accident. The Tribunal found that there was adequate evidence to prove the involvement of the vehicle. I, therefore will not make any modification with reference to the liability which was fastened on the insured owner and appeal is dismissed accordingly. 2. There is a cross-objection for enhancement of compensation. The death was of a young boy aged 18½ years, who was stated to be an agriculturist. The parents were aged around 40 years and the minor sister had also joined among the claimants. While dismissing the claim for the minor sister, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased as ` 2000/- per month, the contributions to the family at ` 1000/- and adopted a multiplier of 5. I will take the same income as established but instead of multiplier of 5, I will adopt a multiplier of 15, suitable to the age of the parents and amount would be come to ` 1,80,000/-. I will also make an addition of ` 20,000/- towards conventional heads of claim for loss to estate, funeral expenses and loss of love and affection for the loss of their only son and round off the - 2- FAO No.1554 of 1993 claim to ` 2,00,000/-. The amount found in excess of what was determined by the tribunal will attract interest 6% from the date of filing of petition till the date of payment. The claimants shall have the right of enforcement against the insurance company and in turn the insurance company may seek for recovery against the owner of the vehicle. The cross objection is allowed to the above extent. 08.02.2011 (K. KANNAN) vcgarg JUDGE - 3-