FAO No.1605 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** Date of decision : 12.5.2011 1. FAO No.1605 of 1996 Sahab Singh alias Sain Bahadur and others .........Appellants Vs. Smt.Ramola and others .......Respondents 2. FAO No.1663 of 1996 Sahab Singh and another .........Appellants Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma and another .......Respondents 3. FAO No.1602 of 1996 Ramola and others .........Appellants Vs. Sahab Singh alias Sain Bahadur and others .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present:- Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3 (for respondent No.1 in FAO No.1663 of 1996) Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.4 (for respondent No.2 in FAO No.1663 of 1996) --- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No --- FAO No.1605 of 1996 -2- K.KANNAN, J (ORAL) :- 1. Both the appeals are connected and at the instance of the owner, who had been loaded with the liability on the ground that the driver had been guilty of driving without a valid driving licence. The Insurance Company has been exonerated. This Court has directed the verification of driving licence and the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company states that instructions received through communication to the Manager of the Insurance Company from the surviver that the licence particulars as given in the copy, produced before the Court are that the license is talied. On the basis of information so obtained, I set aside the finding given by the Tribunal that the insured had been quilty of violation of terms of policy. The finding regarding liability is set aside and the owner-appellant in the above appeals will have full right of indemnity for enforcement of the awards. 2. Both the appeals stand allowed and would survive for consideration only for the issue of assessment of quantum of compensation which is the subject in FAO No.1602 of 1996 dealt with below. 3. This appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of Rajan Kumar aged 23 years. He was a bachelor and the claimants were mother, brother and sister. His income was taken as ` 4,000/-and the Court made a deduction of 50% and adopted a multiplier of 16. Both as regards the multiplier and the multificand, FAO No.1605 of 1996 -3- the Tribunal has adopted a reasonable approach for afterall the dependency could not have been for the entire period of life of the deceased, having regard to the fact that he could have married and the contribution of the family would have also reduced. Assessment of compensation in the above case, therefore, would require no intervention. 4. FAO No.1663 of 1996 is with reference to death of bachelor, where the claimants are mother, sister and brother. The compensation assessed was in the same scale as in FAO No.1602 of 1996. It does not call for any intervention. 5. The awards are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed accordingly. 6. The enforcement of the claim for compensation will stand modified in the light of the terms the judgment rendered above by Court in FAO No.1605 of 1996. Any amount which has been paid by the insured towards the satisfaction of the awards, are liable for return at the instance of owner from the Insurance Company since the Insurance company is bound to indemnify the insured, with 6% interest on the amount from the date of petition till the respective dates of payment. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 12.5.2011 akm