FAO No.2725 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2725 of 2002 Date of Decision. 07.07.2010 New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ........Appellant Versus Somviri widow of Shri Mam Raj aliea Mamu Ram and others ...Respondents Present: Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the respondents. 2. FAO No.2888 of 2002 Somviri widow of Shri Mam Raj alias Mamu Ram and others .........Appellant Versus Avtar Singh and others .......Respondents Present: Ms. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate for respondent No.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 insurance has taken steps to show that the copy of the licence, which had been produced before it by the driver was not true by examining a Clerk from the Licensing Authority, Ambala as RW-1, who gave evidence with reference to the original register that the licence had not been issued against particular No.26976. The FAO No.2725 of 2002 -2- driver and the insured had remained ex parte. The Tribunal was in error in reasoning that if they had remained ex parte, it could not have been possible for the insurer to produce a copy of the driving licence. A situation for a driver or a owner remaining ex parte could not be better off than if they had been present. If the owner would not offer his own evidence when there was evidence placed by the insurer that the copy of the driving licence with the details contained therein could not be true, the onus of proof must be taken to have been discharged and the onus was on the driver only to explain how the details were wrong or inadequate. The insurance company has to be, therefore, exonerated. 2. Under the circumstances, the Insurance Company shall not be liable to indemnify the insured. The liability is to satisfy the claim under the award with a right of recovery against the insured. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the appeal allowed to the above extent. 3. As regards the quantum, the appeal filed in FAO No.2888 of 2002 by the claimants is that the deceased was 40 years of old and he was Foreman-cum-driver earning Rs.3,000/-. The Tribunal took the personal expenses to be 1/3rd of the same and provided for the extent of dependence at Rs.2,000/- per month. It adopted a multiplier of 14 and added Rs.5,000/- in addition towards funeral expenses and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,41,000/-. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants would contend that the Tribunal ought to have noticed that the deceased was supporting a large family of his widow, father and four children and ought to FAO No.2725 of 2002 -3- have, therefore, provided for a lessor extent for his personal expenses. If it applied the unit theory as advocated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362 as approved in Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121, the provision for personal expenses must have been taken only as 1/5th and a 4/5th of the monthly income must have been taken to be contribution to the family. So reckoned, the monthly contribution would have been Rs.2400/- and the annual dependence must have been reckoned as Rs.28,800/-. The choice of multiplier as 14 was correct and the compensation would have been Rs.4,03,200/-. I provide for loss of consortium to the wife to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and grant an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- for each one of the four children for loss of love and affection of their father. I provide for Rs.5,000/- towards loss to estate and in all another Rs.35,000/- will have to be added to Rs.4,03,200/-, totalling Rs.4,38,200/-. The amount which is now determined and the difference of the amount which was already awarded, shall be paid by the insurer with interest @7.5% from the date of the award of the Tribunal till the date of payment with a right of recovery provided to the insured as held by me in the connected appeal in FAO No.2725 of 2002. The directions to deposit as contained in the order of the Tribunal shall be retained. 4. The appeal in FAO No.2888 of 2002 is allowed to provide for an enhancement in the manner referred to above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 07, 2010 Pankaj*