F.A.O. NO. 2600 OF 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. NO. 2600 OF 2007 DECIDED ON : 27.01.2010 Sharanjit Kaur and others ...Appellants versus Kirna Rani and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. M. K. Singla, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- on account of death of Harjit Singh. The brief case of the claimants is that on 03.03.2005, Harjit Singh was travelling to village Lakhmirwala in Qualis Car bearing No. PB-44A-6537 from the house of Kirna Rani- respondent No.1 (owner of Qualis Car NO. PB-44A-6537). However, the said Qualis car was kidnapped by some unknown persons anywhere between Sunam and village Lakhmirwala. In the morning of 04.03.2005, the dead body of Harjit Singh was F.A.O. NO. 2600 OF 2007 -2- found. An amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was claimed along with interest @ 12 % per annum. The claim petition was resisted. Respondent No.1 filed written statement alleging that the deceased was employed as driver on monthly salary of Rs.3000/-. Some unknown persons have taken the vehicle along with Harjit Singh and murdered him. The New India Assurance Company has also filed separate written statement wherein it has been admitted that intimidated Kirna Rani was the owner of Qualis in question and the murder has taken place in the car. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal. Issue No.1 was reframed : 1) Whether Harjit Singh @ Mintoo son of Hari Singh died in a motor vehicle accident by use of Qualis Car No. PB-44A-6537 ? OPP 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation as prayed for ? OPP 3) Whether the deceased was not holding a valid driving license at the time of alleged accident ? OPR 4) Whether the vehicle in question was being run as Taxi at the time of alleged accident ? OPR 5) Relief. The learned Tribunal returned the findings on Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants while deciding Issue No.2, it was F.A.O. NO. 2600 OF 2007 -3- held that the claimants are legal heirs and are entitled to claim Rs.2,60,000/-. The income of the claimant was taken as Rs.2100/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount for personal expenses, the dependency was calculated as Rs.16,800/-. The multiplier of 15 was applied and Rs.8000/- was allowed on account of funeral expenses. Issues No.3 and 4 were decided against the respondents. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said award, the present petition has been filed for enhancement. So far the income assessed by the Tribunal amounting to Rs.2100/- per month is concerned, that has not been disputed. However, the counsel for the appellant has argued that as per Schedule 2 of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, the multiplier applicable should have been 18. He has further contended that amount of Rs.8000/- only has been granted, whereas as per that Schedule, the claimants are held entitled to claim Rs.2000/- on account of funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- on account of loss of consortium and Rs.2500/- on loss of estate and in this manner, they are entitled to claim Rs.9500/- instead of Rs.8000/- granted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company could not refute the said argument. However, he has contended that it is a murder and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable. However, the counsel for the Insurance Company could not convinced that whether any appeal has been preferred. Otherwise F.A.O. NO. 2600 OF 2007 -4- also, the Tribunal while deciding Issue No.1 has elaborately discussed this Issue and relied upon the authority “Smt. Rita Devi and others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and another” 2000 (2) PLR 768. So, finding on Issue No.1 does not call for any interference and the same stands accepted. Consequently, the claimants are held entitled to claim Rs.9500/- on account of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate instead of Rs.8000/-. The multiplier applicable in this case as per Schedule IInd of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is assessed as 18 instead of 15 applied by the Tribunal. So, in this manner, the claimants are entitled to claim Rs.51,900/- more in addition to the amount granted by the Tribunal along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of appeal till its realisation, to be shared by claimants in same ratio as per award of the Tribunal. The appeal stands partly accepted to the extent mentioned above. JANUARY 27, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE