FAO No.1522 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1522 of 2002 Date of Decision. 27.09.2010 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. through Assistant Manager, Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh 160 017 ..........Appellant Versus Pala Ram son of Kapoora resident of village Sangan, District Kaithal and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Rahish Pahwa, Advocate for the claimant-respondent. 2. FAO No.2273 of 2002 Pala Ram son of Kapoora resident of village Sangan, District Kaithal and others ..........Appellant Versus Parlad son of Ganga Ram others .....Respondents Present: Ms. Rahish Pahwa, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the insurance company. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. FAO Nos.1522 and 2273 of 2002 arise out of the same accident. The former is at the instance of the insurer and the later FAO No.1522 of 2002 -2- is at the instance of the claimant seeking for enhancement. 2. The case has come through a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act where then were no eye-witnesses for the accident. The claim was, therefore, made on a structured formula basis where there was no requirement to prove the negligence of the driver involved in the accident. The evidence was that he was a casual labourer and he was earning not less than Rs.1800/- per month. The Tribunal took the dependence of the parents as Rs.900/- and adopted a multiplier of 16 while determining a compensation of Rs.1,72,800/-. An additional amount of Rs.5,000/- was taken for funeral expenses and the claim was rounded off to Rs.1,78,000/-. I cannot find any error in the calculation or determination of the award. The appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed. 3. There is also a cross appeal for enhancement in FAO No.2273 of 2002 but there is no representation for the appellant. The appeal for enhancement is dismissed for default and non- prosecution. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 27, 2010 Pankaj* PS: (1) Learned counsel Ms. Rahish Pahwa, for the appellant represents that she had made a prayer for an adjournment on 27.09.2010 in FAO No. 2273 of 2002, which was orally accorded. However, the case has been dismissed for default. I recall the order of dismissal suo motu on an oral submission made by learned counsel FAO No.1522 of 2002 -3- and proceed to pass the following order. "Order dated 27.09.2010, of dismissal in default is recalled. " 2. The appeal is for enhancement of claim at the instance of the parents of the deceased who was aged 20 years. The contention was that he was a casual labourer and his income was Rs. 3,000/- per month. The Tribunal found that there was no proof regarding the same and considering the issue that the deceased was a bachelor and that his contribution to the family would have reduced, the Tribunal took the dependency at Rs. 900/-, adopted a multiplier of 16 and determined compensation of Rs. 1,72,800/-. In this case, since the deceased was in the lower income category I would apply the formula as provided under Schedule II and I would provide for 1/3rd deduction, take the dependency at Rs.1200/-. I would adopt a multiplier of 17 which would yield the loss of dependency at Rs. 2,44,800/-. I would add Rs. 2,500/- towards loss to estate and another Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses which would yield Rs.2,49,300/-. The amount determined by the Tribunal shall stand increased and the amount in excess over the already awarded amount shall also attract interest @6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The appeal in FAO No.2273 of 2002 is partly allowed to the above extent. A photostat copy of this order be placed on connected case. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 30, 2010 Pankaj* FAO No.1522 of 2002 -4-