IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1475 of 2002 Date of decision:18.08.2010 New India Assurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Manmohan Maini and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 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 Insurance Company is in appeal on issues of negligence and quantum. The deceased was a pharmacist and the claimant had produced the proof of income at Rs.11,088/-. The Tribunal provided for a monthly dependence of Rs.7,392/- and adopted a multiplier of 16 for a person aged 39 years. The appropriate multiplier, in my view, should have been 15, but I still do not think it makes a difference for the Tribunal had not made any provision for future increase in salary for a person, who had firm security of service. I do not therefore propose to modify the award on the issue of quantum. On the issue of negligence, even the driver of the offending vehicle had not been examined and, FAO No.1475 of 2002 - 2 - therefore, the Tribunal was justified in finding that the insured's vehicle was responsible for the accident. 2. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 18.08.2010 sanjeev