F.A.O.NO. 3977 OF 2002 and Cross Objection No. 17-CII of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 3977 OF 2002 and Cross Objection No. 17-CII of 2003 Date of decision:27th September, 2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager. .......Appellant Versus Mrs. Siya Singh and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. K.S.Dhanora, Advocate, for the cross-objectors. 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 challenging the liability on the ground that the driver was driving a three wheeler which was a commercial vehicle and the driver had a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle only. The Light Motor Vehicle was used for carrying passengers and used as a Transport Vehicle. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Cholleti Bharatamma and others (2008) 1 SCC F.A.O.NO. 3977 OF 2002 and Cross Objection No. 17-CII of 2003 2 423, a driver driving a transport vehicle without a valid endorsement cannot be said to be duly licenced. The insurer could not have been made liable. 2. The award of the Tribunal is modified to provide for right of recovery after satisfying the award from the owner/insured and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. 3. There is cross objection for enhancement at the instance of the claimants who were widow, two minor daughters and a minor son. Deceased was a draftsman in the Indian Army and his income was shown to be Rs. 6,800/-. He had prospects of increase in salary and if the formula as suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 is adopted then his salary must be increased by 50%. Being a person less than 40 years of age, the salary component which is produced before the Court was Rs. 5,900/- plus Rs. 30/- as allowance. I would provide for an increase of 50% of Rs. 5,900/- plus allowances also and that would account for Rs. 9,750/- as the average salary for the deceased. He had four dependents and I would therefore, provide for 1/4th deduction for his personal consumption and take the extent of monthly dependency at Rs. 7,312.5/- and the annual dependency would be Rs. 87,750/-. I would adopt a multiplier of 16 and the compensation that will become payable would be Rs. 14,04,000/- I will provide for another Rs. 26,000/-towards loss of consortium to the wife, loss of love and affection for each one of the children and loss to F.A.O.NO. 3977 OF 2002 and Cross Objection No. 17-CII of 2003 3 estate and for funeral expenses and I round it off to Rs. 14,30,000/-. The Tribunal already awarded Rs.8,86,680/-. The increase over the amount already awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The cross appeal is allowed to the above extent. ; [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 27th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik