IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.79 of 1989(O&M) Date of decision:01.02.2011 Balbir Kaur and others ....Appellants versus Anil Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. R.M.Suri, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. 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 appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of a 50 years old person,who was said to working in the army. The income proved on record that he was earning Rs.1,448.15. The Tribunal took the income at Rs.1,500/-, provided for 1/3rd deduction and take the contribution to the family at Rs.1,000/-. 2. The learned counsel states that the wife had given evidence to the effect that the husband used to give Rs.1,400/- as household expenses and that should be taken since the husband was getting free ration at the army and, therefore, 1/3rd deduction could not be taken. FAO No.79 of 1989(O&M) - 2 - This argument was rejected already by the Tribunal and I will do the same. I will take the monthly dependency at Rs.1,000/- and adopt a multiplier of 11 instead of 10 as taken by the Tribunal and hold the loss of dependency at Rs.1,32,000/-. The Tribunal has not provided for the conventional heads of claim such as loss of consortium, which I will estimate to Rs.5,000/- for the wife and Rs.2,500/- for each of the minor children. I will add another Rs.5,000/- towards loss to estate and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total amount of compensation will be Rs.1,50,000/-. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal already shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 3. The counsel appearing for the Insurance Company Mr. Suri states that the liability of the Insurance Company had been restricted in terms of what was provided under the Motor Vehicles Act. The liability for anyone accident for a goods vehicle at the relevant time of the accident was Rs.1,50,000/- under the Act and, therefore, the entire amount of compensation that has been now awarded to the extent to which this is an addition to what has already been ordered shall be borne only by the Insurance Company. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 01.02.2011 sanjeev