FAO No.3185 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3185 of 1996 Date of Decision.30.11.2010 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. SCO 36-37, Sector 17, Regional Office, through its Assistant Manager, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Smt. Kamlesh widow of Shiv Kumar son of Sh. Lachhman Dass and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 8. None for respondents No.9 and 10. 2. FAO No.2259 of 1996 Smt. Kamlesh widow of Shiv Kumar son of Sh. Lachhman Dass and others ......Appellants Versus M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Ballabgarh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 attempt of the insurance company in appeal was to file a petition under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to seek for FAO No.3185 of 1996 -2- privilege of canvassing the issue of quantum and the negligence. The same cannot be entertained, for it must be brought out at or before the Tribunal and cannot be a post facto assessment of the insurer that it was omitted to be done at the Tribunal. The appeal by the insurance company is dismissed. 2. On the plea of enhancement of the quantum of compensation, the claimants were the widow and seven children including six daughters and one son. The deceased was aged 35 years and he was said to have been engaged in business of building material and equipments. There was evidence to the effect that he was carrying on his operations through a business named M/s Goel Brothers and in support of the claim that the deceased was earning substantial amounts, the claimants had filed the school tuition receipt that evidenced that he had admitted all his children in Gyan Bharti High School and the annual fee aggregated to Rs.4570/-. He also maintained a bank account and I have examined them to notice that there had been deposits to the tune of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1400/- every month. Although the bank operations do not seem to suggest that he was having a very lucrative business, he had modest income at least to have some surplus after supporting a large family. The evidence is too skeletal for an appraisal to a larger amount than how the Tribunal has taken but still I would go with the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that he would have earned definitely more than Rs.3,000/- per month in the year 1995-1996 to allow for the children to be put in a convent school and was also owning a truck. There is definitely an element of conjecture but I FAO No.3185 of 1996 -3- would give the benefit to the claimants since the deceased leaves behind a large family to wail on his death. I would take the income to be Rs.5,000/-, provide for a 1/5th deduction and take contribution to the family at Rs.4,000/- against the plea of wife that her husband used to give her Rs.6,000/- per month. I would adopt a multiplier of 16 against the multiplier of 11 as adopted by the Tribunal. I will also provide for loss of consortium at Rs.5,000/- to the wife and Rs.2500/- for loss of love and affection for each one of the minor children. I will add Rs.5,000/- towards loss to estate and further provide for Rs.2500/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation that will become payable would be Rs.7,98,000/-. The amount in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 3. Since the accident has taken place more than 17 years now, I will make no direction for retention of any portion of the awarded and the entire amount shall fall to be distributed amongst all the claimants equally. If any of the claimants is still minor, the amount shall be retained in a Nationalized Bank during the period of minority and the interest accruals will be paid to the mother as a guardian for the minor children quarterly for maintenance of the children. 4. The cross appeal filed by the claimant is consequently allowed as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 30, 2010 Pankaj*