FAO No. 933 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 933 of 1990 Date of decision March 8, 2011 Anguri Devi and others ....... Appellant Versus Satbir Singh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Ashit Malik , Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J. L. Mehta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** 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 K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation. The deceased was working in the Irrigation Department drawing a salary of `1067/- per month. The claimants were widow and six minor children. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of `1,36,500/-. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks reappraisal of compensation in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121, making due provision for prospect of increase in salary for a person who was working in a government department. I will reappraise the compensation and also add FAO No. 933 of 1990 2 towards conventional heads of claim providing for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection for all the children. The amount shall be tabulated as below: Age 37 Occupation Irrigation department Claimants Widow, 6 minor children S.No. Heads of claim Tribunal High Court 1 Income `1067 `1067/- 2 % of increase 50% `1600/- 3 Deduction 1/3rd 01/05/11 4 Multiplicand 711x12 `15365/- 5 Multiplier 16 16 6 Loss of dependency `2,45,837/- 7 Loss of consortium & love & affection for children `20,000/- 8 Loss to estate `5,000/- 9 Funeral expenses `2,500/- Total 1,36,500/- `2,92,649/- 3. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the vehicle involved was a Bajaj tampo and the liability of the Insurance Company is restricted. Counsel for the claimant would contend that the plea of restriction of liability was not taken at all. The Tribunal assessed a compensation less than `1,50,000/- and therefore there was no necessity for the Tribunal to consider whether the Insurance Company's liability was in any way restricted. Since in this case, I have reworked the compensation it becomes necessary to examine the terms of the policy. The vehicle is insured as a commercial vehicle for carrying goods and a basic premium of `240/- has been paid to cover the risk to a third party. The limit of liability as specified in the policy is as it was to meet the requirement of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Section 95(2) (a) restricts the liability of an insurer to a goods vehicle to `1,50,000/- for a claim arising FAO No. 933 of 1990 3 from a third party. The amount assessed therefore will be answered by the insurer up to `1,50,000/- with interest and for the balance of amount the right of enforcement for the claimants shall be against the owner and driver. The amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 8 , 2011 archana