FAO No.5381 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5381 of 2004 Date of Decision. 24.08.2010 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Regional Manager, SCO No.109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Smt. Luxmi Devi wd/o Shri Naresh Kumar and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. 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 issue involved in the appeal filed by the insurer is whether the Tribunal was justified in making a deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses in a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act where as per the statute, it could have been only 1/3rd. There was also yet another objection that the deceased had died on account of the electrocution of the stationary vehicle, which was being used as a shop and current passed while taking illegal electricity connection. It was a case where the deceased had kept his hand on the bus when due to conduction of electricity by the vehicle coming in contact with the live electric wire got an electric shock and he had died. I have no doubt in my mind that this death was by the use of a motor vehicle,in an expansive definition that has FAO No.5381 of 2004 -2- come to gain ground through several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Courts. If the proximate cause for the death was a motor vehicle, it is not always necessary that the vehicle must have been in motion involving the same in the collision with another vehicle or the deceased should have been a pedestrian being run over. 2. The matter would require a consideration only on the issue of the fact that the Tribunal had adopted 1/4th multiplier when it should have been 1/3rd as per the Schedule II in the Motor Vehicles Act, which is the relevant provision for consideration of the claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no option left for the Tribunal except to adopt a formula prescribed under the Act. If the deduction were to be taken as 1/3rd and not 1/4th, the compensation that would become payable would be Rs.4,26,666/- and if an addition of Rs.9,500/- were also to be made it for the conventional heads of claims, the total compensation would be Rs.4,36,166/-. 3. The award by the Tribunal shall, therefore, stand modified to provide for a compensation as referred to above with interest in the manner prescribed by the Tribunal. The distribution of the amounts shall also be done in the same proportion in which the Tribunal had provided for. 4. The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 24, 2010 Pankaj*