F.A.O.No. 902 of 1990 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 902 of 1990 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.9.2008 The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Sunita and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Deepak Suri, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER,J. In this appeal by the insurance company against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal dated 8.9.1990 challenge has been made to the issue of liability being fastened by the appellant. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is not responsible to satisfy the award in view of the fact that there is evidence on record to suggest that injured Moman Ram along with one Om Parkash deceased was going on the truck bearing registration No.HRH-5083 after paying fare and in view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the gratuitous passengers were not covered under the terms of the insurance policy. F.A.O.No. 902 of 1990 (O&M) -2- I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The only testimony on the record is that of PW4 Moman Ram who has testified that Om Pariash had given fare to driver Balhiar Singh. Om parkash, however, had died and Balhiar Singh has not been examined. In this view of the matter, the evidence regarding payment of fare is too weak to be accepted. There is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. In this appeal cross-objections have also been preferred by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 8, who are legal heirs of deceased Om Parkash. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.400/- per month while assessing him as a casual labourer. The dependency was taken at Rs.250/- per month and applying a multiplier of 16 the compensation was assessed at Rs.48,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.2000/- on account of medical treatment. I have perused the record. In the considered opinion of this Court even if the deceased was working as a casual labourer, his earnings should have been taken Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- per month as the accident had occurred in the year 1987. He was survived by his widow and six minor children. The deceased was a casual labourer and he would not have been able to get work for the whole year. Thus, taking his income as Rs.700/- per month and after deducting 1/4th as personal expenses, the total dependency works out to Rs.6,300/- per annum. Considering the income and age of the deceased, a multiplier of 17, in the opinion of this Court,would be just and appropriate. Thus, the F.A.O.No. 902 of 1990 (O&M) -3- total compensation works out to Rs.1,07,100/-. A sum of Rs.20,000/- in lump sum is also awarded on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate, medical expenses, etc. as the deceased probably remained under treatment for some time. In this way, the total compensation of Rs.1,27,100/- is awarded to the cross-objectors/claimants/respondents No.1 to 8. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid along with interest @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realisation. The liability to pay the said amount shall be that of the insurance company. Accordingly, the appeal and the cross-objections stand disposed of. 15.9.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss