FAO No. 404 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 404 of 1987 Smt. Hasina and others. .....Appellants. VERSUS Malkiat Singh and others ....Respondents FAO No. 546 of 1987 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Appellant VERSUS Smt. Hasina and others ....Respondents. Date of Decision : 19-11-2008 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Puneet Bassi, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Vinod Chaudhari, Advocate for Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for New India Assurance Company Ltd. MAHESH GROVER, J This order will dispose of two appeals bearing nos. FAO No. 404 of 1987 and 546 of 1987. On 14.7.84 an accident took place in which one Jamaluddin lost his life. He was travelling in bus bearing no. DEP 3514. In the claim petition which was preferred by his widow, three minor children and the parents of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 76,800/-. His income was assessed as Rs. 600/- per FAO No. 404 of 1987 2 month and dependency was assessed as Rs. 400/- per month. Multiplier of 16 was applied to arrive at the aforesaid compensation. This amount was directed to be paid alongwith interest of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realisation. It was claimed by the claimants that the deceased was trading in livestock and was earning Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 4000/- per month. However, there was no proof of his income and the Tribunal assessed him as above. Dis-satisfied with the award of the Tribunal, claimants are in appeal which is the subject matter of FAO No. 404 of 1987. The Insurance Company which was fastened with the liability to satisfy the award i.e upto the limited of Rs. 50,000/- has also filed a separate appeal bearing no. 546 of 1987 to contend that their liability was to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- only which was prescribed under the Statute. Reference was made to Section 95(2) of the Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the award. In so far as the appeal of the claimants (ie FAO No. 404 of 1987) is concerned the deceased was aged 25 years. There was no proof of his income which he was allegedly earning while trading in livestock. Therefore, he was correctly assessed as a labourer but the income was certainly assessed on the lower side. In the year 1984 a labourer would be earning between Rs. 800/- to Rs. 900/- per month. Therefore, it would be safe to assess income of the deceased as Rs. 800/- per month. He was survived by his widow, three minor children and parents and it is settled law where survivors are more and income is meager, cut of 1/ 4th or 1/3rd should not be resorted to. In the given set of circumstances, it would be safe to deduct Rs. 150/- on account of personal expenses. Therefore, the FAO No. 404 of 1987 3 dependency comes to Rs. 650/- per month. Considering his age, multiplier of 17 would be appropriate as per Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act which is the guiding factor. In this manner, compensation comes to Rs. 1,32,600/- (650 X 12 X 17 = 132600). An amount of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,52,600/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of its realisation. However, considering the fact that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to the statutory limit of Rs. 15,000/-. The same is accepted specially in the absence of any other material on record to show that any extra premium has been paid to cover the entire liability. The liability to satisfy the award shall therefore be of the Insurance Company and the owner and driver of the vehicle jointly and severally but as held above, the insurance company shall be liable to satisfy the award only upto the limit of Rs. 15,000/-. The Tribunal had fixed the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and it has been stated that the said amount of Rs . 50,000/- has been paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants. In this eventuality, the Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the excess amount from the owner and the driver and not from the claimants. Thus, both the appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. November 19, 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge