Cross Objection No.3-CII of 2000 in/and FAO No.718 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.3-CII of 2000 in/and FAO No.718 of 1994 Date of decision: 14.10.2010 New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Savita Jain and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 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. 1. This Court has already dealt with another claim petition arising out of the same accident in FAO No.717 of 1994. Originally, I had taken the view that the Insurance Company shall be only liable to satisfy the claim and shall having, right of recovery against the insured. I had recalled that order made on 20.08.2010 and I have passed a fresh order along with this order to be pronounced simultaneously. I have now held in the connected case since the case relates to an accident and claims under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the insurer's liability shall be Cross Objection No.3-CII of 2000 in/and FAO No.718 of 1994 2 only to satisfy the claimant and recover the same from the insured. The same decision will govern the rights between the insurer and the insured in this case also. 2. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,16,000/-. The claimant in appeal are the widow and the children of Balwant Rai. The evidence for compensation was that the deceased Balwant Rai had been working as a Commission Agent, earning about Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal held on evidence that he was originally treated at Rajindra Hospital at Patiala and later shifted to CMC at Ludhiana. Having regard to the fact that he was aged 44 years and the Tribunal took from the evidence adduced, his annual income to be Rs.1,06,280/- and provided for 1/3rd deduction took the contribution to the family as Rs.12,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 16. The choice of multiplier was done on the basis that he would have continued as an agent upto the age of 65/70. For a 44 years old to adopt a multiplier of 18 was certainly high, the compensation awarded already is in excess of what could have been awarded. In cross appeal, it is contended that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal took the monthly income to be Rs.12,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 18. The choice of multiplier was wrong but the multiplicand was taken wrongly as Rs.12,000/- per year making a mistake of considering Rs.1,06,280/- as Rs.16,280/-, if 1/3rd were to be deducted out of Rs.1,06,280/-, the annual contribution to the family must have been Rs.70,853.333/-. The multiplier for a person of aged 44 years must have been taken as 14 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Cross Objection No.3-CII of 2000 in/and FAO No.718 of 1994 3 Court in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another-2009 ACJ 1298. The compensation payable would have been Rs.15,90,466/-. The claimant would also contend that the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 16.03.1989 and died only on 05.04.1989, compensation ought to have been provided for also pain and suffering for at least 20 days besides Rs.40,000/- spent for medical expenses. The Tribunal had also provided for conventional heads of claim, loss of consortium and loss of estate, I would provide for an additional sum of Rs.15,000/- for the conventional heads of claim. In all, the total amount would be Rs.16,25,466/-. The amount in excess of what has already been determined by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The cross appeal stands allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 14.10.2010 sanjeev/Shivani Kaushik