F.A.O.NO. 2313 OF 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 2313 OF 2002 Date of decision:27th September, 2010 New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Regional Manager, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Murti Devi and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. C.L.Panwar, Advocate, for the claimants. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal on the issue of liability and quantum. The Insurer had the benefit of defence under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. As regards the liability there was driver who was said to possess a driving licence for driving a car and jeep but the vehicle that he was driving was a maxi cab. This categorization itself will have no significance, for if the vehicle was a transport vehicle and if only the plea was that the driver did not have a transport vehicle F.A.O.NO. 2313 OF 2002 2 endorsement it would have had any relevance for an enquiry. There is no specific plea or proof that the licence that the driver had was not an effective driving licence and that the driver was not duly licenced. The plea must be specifically established by the insurer. 3. As regards the quantum, the deceased was 50 years of age and the Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 10. The dispensation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 is such it provides even a higher multiplier of 13 up to the age of 50 and 11 between the age of 50 to 55. The compensation cannot be taken to be excessive and there is no scope for intervention. The award of the Tribunal is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 27th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik