FAO No.3055 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH X Objection No.68-CII of 2005 in FAO No.3055 of 2005 Date of Decision. 10.08.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17- B, Chandigarh through Sh. D.N. Behera, Assistant Manager ......Appellant Versus Pritam Ram son of Teja Ram and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Sonal Datta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for respondent No.4. None for the cross objector. 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 company is on appeal claiming that the award could not have been granted to a brother for the death of his younger brother. The contention is that an elder brother cannot be a legal representative of a younger brother and the compensation assessed is wrong. I am afraid, I cannot entertain any plea on behalf of the insurer that will have a bearing to interfere with the issue of quantum, if the insurer did not have a benefit of taking up defence under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The pleas of dependence and compensation are matters of fact, which would be FAO No.3055 of 2005 -2- elicited at the trial. The insurance company has not thought it necessary to make available the benefit of any evidence placed before the Tribunal. The appeal is vexatious and dismissed as such. 2. There has been a cross appeal at the instance of the claimant urging that the deceased was 54 years of age at the time of accident and he was working as a driver of tipper vehicle earning an income of Rs.5,000/-. The cross appeal is made only on the basis that he was a skilled labourer and therefore, the assessment of compensation should have been done acceding the plea that he was earning Rs.5,000/- but the compensation was arrived at taking the income to be Rs.3,000/-. I find the plea to be inappropriate, for the claim had been made under Section 163-A and the income could not have been assessed in the manner canvassed under the said provision because the income was more than Rs.40,000/-. The claimant was only the brother and his own age should have been the determining factor for compensation. 3. The award passed by the Tribunal is just and appropriate and I see no reason to interfere the same. The cross appeal filed by the claimant is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 10, 2010 Pankaj*