FAO No.279 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH X Objection No.51-CII of 2008 in FAO No.279 of 2008 Date of Decision. 14.07.2010 United India Insurnace Company Limted, Hisar having its Regional Office in SCO No.123-24, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney ........Appellant Versus Sumitra Devi wife of Shri Mahabir Singh Jangra and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the respondent 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 as well as the claimant are in appeal and cross appeal. The appeal filed by the insurer is on the ground that the insured's vehicle had been implicated in the accident, although the registration number of the vehicle and the name of the driver had not been given in the FIR. The Tribunal, however, held on the evidence of two eye-witnesses that at that particular time, the respondent's vehicle, which they could identify by the name of the owner was the vehicle in which the deceased boarded but he fell down from the bus and run over by the same. It FAO No.279 of 2008 -2- is not uncommon for persons in a village to know a bus by the name of owner by remembering the particular time when the vehicle passes through than by the registration number of the bus or the name of the driver. The Tribunal took note of the fact that there was a reference to the owner of the vehicle even in the FIR and that evidence was sufficient to find the owner and the insurer liable. I find the reasoning to be appropriate and I find no reason to interfere with reference to the said finding. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer states that originally Oriental Insurance Company had been impleaded as a party and the present appellant was impleaded nearly four years after the filing of the petitioner. According to him, the insurance company could not have been made liable for payment of interest. 3. In a given case, if the insurer had admitted liability and was pleading that he could not be mulcted with interest for a time when he was not impleaded, then such a contention could be possible. However, in a case where the insurer denies the liability, it would have made no difference whether he had been impleaded as a party earlier or at a subsequent stage. The award of interest from the date of accident, under the circumstances, was perfectly justified and I do not find any merit in the contention that the insurance company could not have been made liable from earlier date. 4. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is a case of claim by a mother of the death of her son, who was 16 years at the time of his death. He was doing matriculation and the evidence that FAO No.279 of 2008 -3- was tendered was that after school hours, he was working as a welder. The alleged employer of the boy had also been examined as PW-3. The Tribunal, however, found that being a school-going boy, it should only be taken that he had no income but, however, provided for a notional income of Rs.15000/- and taking note of the fact that the claimant was the mother, who was aged 42 years, adopted a multiplier of 15 and determined the compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- and an amount of another Rs.10,000/- was added for other expenses. 5. Learned counsel apperaing for the respondent through filing his cross-objection contends that when there was clear evidence that the deceased was doing welding work in the evening after school hours and that he was getting Rs.2,500/-as salary, the same ought to have been accepted. It must be remembered that the version of this witness did not go unchallenged and it was even elicited that there was no record maintained by the employer to show either the employment or the payment of salary. Though it cannot be stated as a rule that a school boy could not have been employed, I see no reason to take the different view if the Tribunal had already taken a decision by adopting only a notional income. The choice of multiplier was also correct and if there is any scope for interference, it could have been only for loss of love and affection for a mother, who had lost her only child. The only boy to a partent from a village background who was going to the school final level truly represents a poignant situation and the loss of love and affection for the parent cannot be denied to her. I would FAO No.279 of 2008 -4- provide for an additional sum of Rs.15,000/- over the amount what was determined to make it Rs.2,50,000/- in all. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. The additional amount shall like-wise bear interest @9% for the date of the award passed by the Tribunal till the date of payment. 6. The appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed and the cross appeal is allowed to the above extent only. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 14, 2010 Pankaj*