IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1334 of 1995 Date of decision:19.07.2010 Oriental Insurance Company ....Appellant versus Sheela and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.1484 of 1995 Smt. Sheela and others ....Appellants versus Shri Ved Parkash and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No.1334 of 1995 and for respondent No.3 in FAO No.1484 of 1995. None for other respondents. ---- 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 cross appeal is not listed today but this fact is pointed out by the learned counsel. I have called for the records from the Registry to list it along with the appeal and both of them disposed of together. 2. The Insurance Company is in appeal questioning the liability FAO No.1334 of 1995 - 2 - as well as the quantum. The vehicle that was involved in the accident was a six seater vehicle which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company would characterize as a transport vehicle and therefore the driver that had a driving licence to drive a motor car or a scooter or a motorcycle could not be said to have a valid driving licence. In my view, the submission is not correct since the definition 'transport vehicle' in Section 2(47) of the MV Act admits of a technical meaning of a vehicle which is either a public service vehicle or a private service vehicle or a goods carriage. The seating capacity of the vehicle is not relevant to characterize it as a transport vehicle though it may be incidental. The Insurance Company cannot therefore be exonerated on that ground. 3. As regards the quantum, there is a cross appeal by the claimants on the ground that the deceased was 45 years old and he had been employed as a Safai Karamchari in Malaria Department, earning Rs.2092/-. The Tribunal had taken the salary at Rs.3300/3400, took the contribution to the family at Rs.2200/- provided for a deduction of 1/3rd, adopted a multiplier of 12 and determined the compensation by slicing the award by half on the ground of contributory negligence and arriving at Rs.1,61,000/-. 4. I am not benefited for the assistance from the counsel for the respondents to state that the finding of contributory negligence is not correct. On the other hand, the reasoning of the Tribunal is that the eye- witnesses spoke about the manner of accident as a head-on-collision occurring in the middle on the road. Therefore, I will take the said FAO No.1334 of 1995 - 3 - finding as correct and if the amount has to be reworked by adopting a multiplier of 14, the amount will be Rs.3,69,000/- and apportioning 50% liability the amount that would become payable would be Rs.1,84,000/-. The conventional heads of claim of the loss of consortium of Rs.10,000/- to the wife and Rs.5,000/- each for the children will add to another Rs.20,000/-. I shall provide for a loss to estate Rs.2,500/- and for funeral expenses another Rs.2,500/-. In all, it shall be Rs.2,40,014/-. The amount that has been already awarded shall now stand increased to the amount as mentioned above for the additional compensation awarded, it will also draw interest at 7.5% from the date of the award till the date of payment. The cross appeal is also allowed in part to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 19.07.2010 sanjeev