FAO No. 3045 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- FAO No. 3045 of 2006 Date of decision: 22.02.2008 National Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Tara Chand and others ...Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nirmal Yadav -.- Present : Mr. V K Kapur, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. R S Mamli, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 6 Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 8 -.- Nirmal Yadav, J. (Oral) This is Appellant-Insurance company's appeal challenging the Award dated 08.04.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act is not maintainable as they claimed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.72,000/- per annum. Learned counsel further argued that the multiplier of 18 as applied by the Tribunal, is on the higher side. The argument is without any force as the learned Tribunal, while taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, has assessed the FAO No. 3045 of 2006 2 income of the deceased at Rs.2200/- per month and dependency comes to Rs.18000/- per annum. A Division Bench of this Court has also decided this issue in 'Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Saroj and others' 2007(1)RCR(Civil)- 153, wherein, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others V. United Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004(2) RCR (Civil) 466 (SC) was also considered. Since the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2200/-, which is less than Rs.40,000/- per annum, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. The argument with regard to multiplier being on higher side, also cannot be accepted, as the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of death. He was survived by a young wife, parents, minor sister and brothers. In these circumstances, the multiplier of 18 is quite justified. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the owner of the offending vehicle had violated the terms of the policy, as the vehicle was being plied without any route permit. A perusal of the impugned award shows that issue No. 3 was framed in this regard. However, no evidence was produced by the appellant-insurance company to prove the said issue. Accordingly, this issue cannot be allowed to be taken up, at this stage. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is dismissed. (Nirmal Yadav) Judge February 22, 2008 mohan