FAO No.573 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. FAO No.573 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION: January 18, 2011 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ...APPELLANT VERSUS KHARAITI AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS PRESENT: MR. L.M. SURI, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. NEERAJ KHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. MR. B.S. RANA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4. NONE FOR RESPONDENS NO.5 AND 6. 2. FAO No.856 of 1991 KHARATI AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS HASAM MOHAMMAD AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. B.S. RANA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2. MR. ASHWANI TALWAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3-INSURANCE COMPANY. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. Both the appeals are connected arising out the same accident. FAO No.573 of 1991 is at the instance of the insurance company denying FAO No.573 of 1991 -2- the liability on the ground that the deceased was a passenger in a goods carriage and there was no policy of insurance to cover the risk for such persons. The admitted case of the claimants was that the deceased and other persons got into the tempo after settling the freight of `50/- and they were travelling alongwith the goods. The provision for compulsory coverage of owners of goods travelling alongwith the goods came through the Motor Vehicle Act of 1989 by amendment of Section 147 issued under the Amended Act of 54 of 1994 on 14.11.1994. There was no need for covering the risk to owner of the goods under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. The liability cast on the insurance company was, therefore, clearly wrong. The award is consequently set aside and the appeal FAO No.573 of 1991 is allowed. 2. FAO No.856 of 1991 is a claim for enhancement brought at the instance of the father and minor children of the deceased who died in the accident. The Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at `900/- per month, provided for the dependency of the children at `600/- and adopted a multiplier of 16. The evidence was that she used to earn `100/--`120/- per day, but the Tribunal held that it is improbable that a labourer in a stone quarry could earn `100-`120/-. I would take the annual income of the deceased at `15,000/-, provide for deduction of 1/4th and take the contribution to the family at `11,250/-. I would retain the multiplier of 16 and find the amount payable at `1,80,000/-. I would add another `10,000/- towards the conventional heads of claim for loss to estate, loss of love and affection for the minor children and funeral expenses and find the over all amount payable as `1,90,000/-. The amount in excess over what has FAO No.573 of 1991 -3- already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment and the amount shall be distributed equally amongst all the claimants. The liability shall be only on respondents No.1 and 2, namely, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. January 18, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE