FAO No.2247 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH X Obj No.4-CII of 2001 in/and FAO No.2247 of 2000 Date of Decision. 20.09.2010 National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.337- 340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney ......Appellant Versus Smt. Roshni wd/o Om Parkash s/o Ami Lal and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jitender Sharma, Advocate for the cross-objectors. 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 appeal is by the insurer denying liability on the ground that the deceased was a passenger in a private vehicle and the policy of insurance was an Act Policy. There is no assumption of risk for death or bodily injury to such a person. This aspect of the liability of the insurance for a passenger in a private vehicle has been considered by this Court with reference several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Courts in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others in FAO No.1648 FAO No.2247 of 2000 -2- of 2008 dated 18.08.2010. In terms of the said judgment, the liability will be only on the driver, which in turn will be taken against vicariously by the owner of the vehicle. The appeal by the insurance company denying liability is upheld and the award against the insurer is set aside. 2. There is also a cross appeal by the appellant for enhancement of the claim. The deceased was said to have been working under a Doctor and the evidence has been given by the Doctor himself stating that he was paying the deceased Rs.2500/-. The Tribunal the income to be Rs.1500/- and worked out compensation. The counsel appearing for the claimant would contend that when there was a positive evidence through the person, who was most competent to issue a salary certificate and gave also evidence, the same ought to have been accepted. I accept the contention of the learned counsel and would take the income as to Rs.2500/-. The claimants were widow and two minor children. I will take the contribution of 1/3rd for personal consumption of the deceased and take the family contribution to Rs.1,666/- per month. I would adopt a multiplier of 17 for a person, whose annual income was less than Rs.40,000/- in the manner provided under Schedule II and find an amount Rs.3,40,000/- as the extent of dependence. I will add another Rs.10,000/- towards the conventional heads of claim for funeral expenses and loss to estate and loss of consortium and round off the figure at Rs.3,50,000/-. The amount found in excess of what has already been awarded by the Tribunal will attract interest 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. FAO No.2247 of 2000 -3- 3. The award will be enforced by the claimants only against the owner and not against the insurer. If any portion of the award has already been recovered by the claimants against the insurer, the insurer will obtain right of refund only against the insured and not against the claimants. The appeal and cross appeal are allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 20, 2010 Pankaj*