IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.35-CII of 1991 in/and FAO No.881 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision:02.02.2011 Karnail Singh ....Appellant versus Mangal Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.C.Chhabra, Advocate. Mr. R.M.Suri, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. ---- 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 is aggrieved against the award fastened against him on the ground that notwithstanding the transfer as far as the third party claim is concerned, the Insurance Company would still be liable so long as the accident took place during the period of insurance. The Insurance Company was exonerated for the only reason that subsequent to the transfer of the vehicle, the purchaser had not informed the insurer in the manner provided unde Section 103 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. The issue of liability of an insurer notwithstanding the lack of communication by the insured has been a subject of a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.Govindan Cross Objection No.35-CII of 1991 in/and FAO No.881 of 1990 (O&M) - 2 - Versus New India Assurance Company Limited-1999(2) PLR 274 that would cast a liability on the insurer to satisfy the claim so long as the claim emanates from a third party. I, therefore, set aside the finding, exonerating the Insurance Company of the liability and make the insurer liable. 2. As regards the quantum, there has been a cross-objection filed by the claimants, who were the parents of the deceased, who was 22 years of age and who was the owner of the tractor and making earning by having the tractor. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased as agricultural labourer at Rs.800/-, took the contribution to the family at Rs.400/-, and adopted a multiplier of 8. I will increase the earning to Rs.1,500/- to hold that the owner of a tractor who makes earning cannot be taken as merely akin to the earning of an agricultural labourer. Instead of a multiplier of 8, I will take a multiplier of 9. I will add a conventional heads of claim and would tabulate the compensation as follows:- Sr.No. Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Age:22 Occupation:Tractor owner Claimants: Parents 1. Income 800 1,500 2. Deduction ½ ½ 3. Multiplicand 400x12 750 x12 4. Multiplier 8 9 5. Loss of dependence - 81,000 6. Loss to estate - 2,500 7. Funeral expenses. - 2,000 _____ _______ Total 38,400 85,500 3. The amount in excess over what has been determined by the Cross Objection No.35-CII of 1991 in/and FAO No.881 of 1990 (O&M) - 3 - Tribunal already shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 4. The amount shall be distributed equally between the claimants and the liability shall be on the Insurance Company, arrayed as the 5th respondent in the appeal. 5. The appeal and the cross-objection are allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 02.02.2011 sanjeev