IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.7-CII of 2000 in/and FAO No.3435 of 1999 Date of decision:24.08.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Jasbir Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Suman Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.V.K.Kaushal, Advocate, for Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent-cross objector. Mr. Parveen Vohra, Advocate, for respondents 5 and 6. ---- 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. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. At the trial, the evidence was adduced that the licence was fake, but the owner had given evidence to the effect that he was under the bona fide belief that the licence was genuine. It is the examination of such belief that is material to provide for the insurer a right of indemnity as found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Versus Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297. Cross Objection No.7-CII of 2000 in/and FAO No.3435 of 1999 - 2 - 2. The award of the Tribunal is, under the circumstances, justified and the appeal is dismissed. 3. There is a cross appeal for enhancement of compensation. The claim was at the instance of the parents and a minor brother and sister. The Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- and provided for contribution to the family as Rs.1,000/-, after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses and adopted a multiplier of 16. The learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the person was aged 22 years and the multiplier adopted must have been only 18 and not 16. It is further contended that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another-2009 ACJ 1298, there were four claimants and, therefore, the deduction must have been taken as 1/4th. As regards the income also, it is contended that the deceased, who was a semi-skilled worker, the income must have been taken as Rs.2,500/- and not Rs.1,500/-. 4. The Tribunal found that there was no proof that he was a semi-skilled worker and, therefore, took the minimum wage applicable at the relevant time to be Rs.1,500/-. I find no error in the said approach. As regards the deduction for personal expenses, the mother alone is the heir and mother & father could be treated as dependents. The issue whether the brothers were dependents on the elder brother in the presence of the father, is invariably a matter of evidence on facts. The learned counsel is unable to provide to me any details as to how the brothers were dependent on the elder brother when the father was still alive. I cannot therefore accommodate a plea that the number of Cross Objection No.7-CII of 2000 in/and FAO No.3435 of 1999 - 3 - dependents must be taken as four. If the claimants were to be therefore seen merely a father and mother even as per the decision in Sarla Verma, the deduction must have been 50% and not 1/3rd. The income is, therefore, to be taken as Rs.1,500/- and 50% deduction were to be worked out. The contribution to the family must be taken as Rs.750/- and the annual dependency will be Rs.9,000/- providing for a multiplier of 18, the amount payable would be Rs.1,62,000/- and the amount awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.1,94,000/- which is more than even what is possible if we apply the decision in Sarla Verma. The learned counsel refers to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Hero Versus General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Ambala-2005(1) Civil Court Cases 702, that adopted a multiplier of 18. I have adopted the same for the above case and I have taken into account a subsequent decision in Sarla Verma of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even if a different calculation were to be made, I do not find that the amount arrived at by the Tribunal is lower and I, therefore, affirm the award and dismiss the cross appeal. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 24.08.2010 sanjeev