FAO No.632 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.632 of 2005 Date of Decision. 10.08.2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Pathankot having its Regional Office in SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney ......Appellant Versus Ishwari Devi wd/o Shri B.S. Sharma resident of Patel Chowk, Kali Mata Mandir, Pathankot, Punjab and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for respondents No.7 and 10. 2. FAO No.195 of 2008 Ashok Kumar son of Sh. Uttam Singh, resident of village Jhajwan Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra (H.P.) and another ......Appellants Versus Ex. N.K. Sanjay Kumar son of Sh. Uma Kant Singh, resident of village Singhai, P.O., Bhagatpur, Tehsil Paroo, District Muzaffarpur and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- FAO No.632 of 2005 -2- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The insurance company, which is insurer for a Tempo in which the deceased was travelling is on appeal challenging the liability on the ground that consistent with the finding that another vehicle "Canter" which dashed against the "Tempo" was found responsible for the accident, the insurer of the Tempo should not been been made jointly liable to satisfy the claim. The contention of the learned counsel is that in a case of a collision, if the Tribunal found one particular vehicle to be responsible for the accident, the award itself could have been passed only against the vehicle which was responsible for the accident and the insurer could not have been made liable when his own insured or his driver was not responsible for the accident. 2. I cannot accept the plea of the learned counsel only for the reason that in a case of collision as far as a third party or a person who could be carried in a vehicle is concerned, his right of action against any one or both of them will be independent of apportionment of liability between the two vehicles involved in the accident. In other words, even if a claim had been made only against the owner of the Tempo of the insurer, the claim could not have been defeated and at best, the insurer would have been able only to obtain a recovery against yet another vehicle, which was responsible for the accident. The award of the Tribunal would, therefore, require confirmation on the aspect regarding the entitlement of the claimant against the insurer. 3. The award, however, requires a modification, for if the FAO No.632 of 2005 -3- Tribunal found the driver of the Canter responsible for the accident consistent with its finding, it ought to have provided to the insurer of the Tempo to obtain a recovery of the entire amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. In this case, it has come in evidence that the owner of the Canter had not insured his vehicle. The insurance company shall be liable to satisfy the claim but it shall have a right of recovery against the owner of the Canter Ashok Kumar, who is arrayed as 7th respondent. 4. The appeal is allowed to above extent only. 5. The owner of the vehicle in Canter is the appellant in FAO No.195 of 2008. The appeal is against the quantum on the ground that the passenger in the vehicle had an amputation of the arm and the Medical Board had certified to be 100% disability. The Tribunal, however, took the disability to be 50% and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,76,000/- that was worked out on the basis that his contribution should be taken as Rs.2000/- per month worked out a total dependency of Rs.24,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 14. 6. I have no doubt in my mind that method of arriving at compensation is wholly erroneous in a case of injury. There is no question of providing for any contribution to any one except to himself. Even deductions are not necessary and what the Tribunal ought to have seen was the ascertainment of loss of earning power for that would have given to him a method of arriving at the loss arising out of such disability. Disability should have also provided for non-pecuniary compensation for the loss of amenities of life and how it impacted his general quality of life or how it affected his FAO No.632 of 2005 -4- employment and resulted in loss of income. The amputation of the arm from the shoulder is 90% disability under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the person who was aged 35, the factor provided under Schedule IV is 197.96. If his income was to be taken Rs.6,000/-, the amount of compensation payable would have been in excess of Rs.6 lacs. The amount determined by the Tribunal is Rs.2,76,000/-, whic is exceedingly modest and the appellant has to only thank himself that there is no appeal by the claimant. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 10, 2010 Pankaj*