FAO No.4654 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No.4654 of 2008 Date of decision January 31 , 2011 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ....... Appellant Versus Bachni and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.D. Sharma , Advocate for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.7. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?Yes K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeal is by the Insurance Company on the ground that the quantum of compensation is higher, the Tribunal having applied the higher multiplier and a low deduction in the case of death of a bachelor. The claimants were mother and sister. The grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is that the judgment does not accord with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121. The decision in Shakti Devi Vs. Tirlok Chandra JT (2010) 13 SC 103 that had held that the choice of multiplier will be depending on the age of the claimant in the case of death of a bachelor FAO No.4654 of 2008 2 son and that deduction should also be made on a higher side to scale down the prospect of reduced contribution when he himself might have got married if he had been alive. This contention would be possible only in an appeal which is maintainable but cannot be urged by the insurer which will amount to merely allowing the Insurance Company to join issues on quantum even without permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable and the award is maintained. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 31, 2011 archana