F.A.O.NO. 2716 OF 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 2716 OF 1999 Date of decision:28th July, 2010 United India Insurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Pushap Lata and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. V.Ramaswarup, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Parduman Yadav, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appellant Insurance Company pleads that the vehicle had been insured as a commercial vehicle for carrying passengers under policy and the driver was shown to have only Light Motor Vehicle licence. Passenger carrying vehicle is a transport vehicle and the driver who did not carry a transport vehicle endorsement as required under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') could not be said to have been duly licensed to drive the vehicle. This is one of the permissible defences under Section 149(2) of the Act and therefore, the insurer had discharged his burden of proof in F.A.O.NO. 2716 OF 1999 2 showing that the owner had committed a breach of the terms of the policy. The liability of the insurer was only to satisfy the claimant and obtain refund of the same from the owner. 2. The case arose out of death of a person aged 22 years in a motor accident. The claimants were wife and a minor child. The deceased was said to have been working as Home Guard for some time but he was making his income by doing odd jobs. He was aged 25 years and the Tribunal had taken the income to be Rs. 2,000/- and the contribution to the family as Rs. 1400/-. It adopted a multiplier of 16 and determined a compensation of Rs.2,68,800/-. 3. There is no cross appeal for enhancement but the learned counsel appearing for the respondent pleads that the court may exercise jurisdiction to re-examine the issue of quantum. Since the claimants were young widow and a minor child, I deem it appropriate to examine the issue of compensation under Section 166 of the Act, although there is no cross appeal have been allowed by several courts for enhancement. If the same income as determined by the Tribunal were to be taken, then the contribution to the family with multiplier of 18 should have been only Rs.3,02,400/-. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation under conventional heads for loss of consortium for wife, loss of love and affection of child. I will determine Rs. 10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively, under the above heads. An additional amount of Rs. 5000/- shall also be made towards funeral expenses and loss to estate. In all, F.A.O.NO. 2716 OF 1999 3 the total Rs. 3,22,400/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- with 10% interest. The excess of amount or what has already been awarded shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of the award of the Tribunal till the date of payment. This liability shall be borne first by the insurer/appellant and it shall be with right of recovery against the owner/insured. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 28th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik