FAO No.1009 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1009 of 2000 DATE OF DECISION: February 23, 2011 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...APPELLANT VERSUS UMRAO SINGH & 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. S.P. SINGH, ADVOCAE FOR MR. AMIT RAWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is by the insurance company which had the benefit of defence under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act as on the issue of quantum and liability. 2. On the ground of liability the contention was that the deceased was a pillion rider and was not covered for risk by the terms of the policy. This contention is not correct since it is a comprehensive policy that includes risk to a pillion rider as well, in terms of the Circular issued by the Tariff Committee on 1 of 1978 dated 17.3.1978 and subsequently carried through the terms of the policy by the insurance company. 3. As regards the quantum, the deceased was 35 years of age and the claimants were two minor children and the parents-in-law of the deceased. The husband was cited as a respondent whose negligence had FAO No.1009 of 2000 -2- caused the accident. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation took the services of a housewife at `3500/- and assessed the income through tailoring work at `1500/-. Learned counsel states that there was no proof that the deceased had a source of income through tailoring. The skills of a woman in tailoring in augmentation of resources to the family in a rural setting may not secure a documentary evidence, but if the trial Court allowed for the same, I will have no reason to suspect the same and take a different view. The income assessed for the deceased and the compensation determined for the claimants would, therefore, not require any intervention in appeal. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. February 23, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE