IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.18-CII of 1998 in/and FAO No.168 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:01.03.2011 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Sushila and others ....Respondents II. FAO No.169 of 1998 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Raj Rani and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. V.K.Kaushal, Advocate, for Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 6 in FAO No.168 of 1998. None for other respondents. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. Both the appeals are connected and they are at the instance of the Insurance Company denying the liability for claims arising out of the death of passengers travelling in a truck. The contention of the claimant was that the deceased and another 20 odd persons were going for attending a kriya ceremony of the relative. After assessing the Cross Objection No.18-CII of 1998 in/and FAO No.168 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - compensation, the Tribunal had directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount. The counsel points out that the averment in the petition itself showed that there was neither workmen employed by the owner to whom the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act could apply nor were there the driver or cleaner, who could have the benefit of a compulsory insurance cover under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The liability cast on the Insurance Company was not tenable in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Insurance Company Limited Versus Asha Rani and others-2001(3) PLR 637. The awards against the Insurance Company are, therefore, liable to be set aside and the appeals are, consequently, allowed. 2. There is a cross objection for enhancement of the award passed in the case which is the subject of appeal in FAO No.168 of 1998. The grievances of the claimants are that the deceased had a large family to support and the deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses was not appropriate. The age of the deceased was 55 and even the choice of multiplier was far less than what was provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another- 2009(6) SCC 121 . I reappraise the compensation in the light of the above decision and tabulate the amount payable as under:- Sr.No. Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) 1. Income 2,000 2,000 2. Add, % of increase - 3. Deduction 1/3 1/4 4. Multiplicand 1,500 5. Multiplier 9 11 6. Loss of dependence 1,98,000 Cross Objection No.18-CII of 1998 in/and FAO No.168 of 1998 (O&M) - 3 - 7. Loss of consortium & loss 17,500 of love and affection 8. Loss to estate 2,500 9. Funeral expenses. 2,000 _______ _______ Total 1,51,200 2,20,000 3. The amount in excess over what has been determined by the Tribunal already, shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability shall be on the owner and driver of the truck and not against the insurer, consistent with the finding recorded already in the appeal while allowing the same. The amount shall be distributed equally amongst the widow and children only. The cross objection is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 01.03.2011 sanjeev