FAO No.439 of 1988 & -1- X-OBJECTION No.75-CII of 1989 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.439 of 1988 & X-OBJECTION No.75-CII of 1989 DATE OF DECISION: January 20, 2011 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...APPELLANT VERSUS SMT. SAROJ AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes ---- PRESENT: MR. L.M. SURI, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. NEERAJ KHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. MR. JASWANT JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 - X-OBJECTOR. MR. D.D. BANSAL, ADVOCATE MR. PARBODH MITTAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.4. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is by the insurance company denying the liability on the ground that the deceased was a passenger in a goods vehicle traveling alongwith the goods. Under the scheme of Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, there was no provision for compulsory insurance cover for a passenger in a goods vehicle and consequently the liability cast on the insurer cannot be justified. I vacate the finding and allow the appeal. 2. It appears that the amount was ordered to be withdrawn on furnishing of security on 7.4.1989. I would still direct the insurance company to proceed against the owner. If it is not recovered from the FAO No.439 of 1988 & -2- X-OBJECTION No.75-CII of 1989 owner, the same may be enforced against the claimants by enforcing security which was directed to be given under the orders of this Court. X-OBJECTION No.75-CII of 1989 3. There are X-objections for enhancement of claim for compensation for a deceased who was 24 years of age and the claimants were widow, son and mother. It was stated that the deceased was engaged in dairy farming and the Tribunal took the income to be `900/- against the claim by the wife that her husband was earning `1000/- per month and contributing to her `800/- for household expenses. I would take the income as `1000/-, make a deduction of 1/3rd and take the contribution to the family at `8000/- annually. I would adopt a multiplier of 18 as done already by the Tribunal and find the loss of dependency at `1,44,000/-. I would also provide for loss of consortium as `5000/- for the widow and `2500/- for son and make a further provision of `2500/- for loss to estate and `2000/- for funeral expenses to find the total amount of compensation payable at `1,56,000/-. Any amount which is in excess over what has been determined by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The enhanced portion of amount of compensation will be payable only to the widow and son and the same shall be shared equally between them. The right of enforcement of this additional amount shall again be available for the claimant, consistent with the finding that I have given in the appeal filed by the insurer, only against the insured. 4. The appeal and X-objections are disposed of as above. January 20, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE