FAO No.2771 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2771 of 2003 Date of Decision. 13.09.2010 The National Insurance Company Ltd. SCO No.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Asstt Manager ......Appellant Versus Smt. Charanjit Kaur wife of Sh. Inder Singh son of Bachan Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.B.S. Baidwan, Advocate for Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for respondents Nos.1 and 2. None for respondent Nos.3 to 5. Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for respondent No.6. None for respondent Nos.7 and 8. 2. FAO No.1027 of 2005 Smt. Charanjit Kaur wife of Sh. Inder Singh son of Bachan Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Ramesh Chand son of Gian Chand and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. H.B.S. Baidwan, Advocate for the appellants. None for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for respondent No.4. None for respondent Nos.5 and 6. Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for respondent No.7. FAO No.2771 of 2003 -2- 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 challenging the liability on the ground of negligence and quantum, having had the benefit of defence on all grounds under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. As regards the first contention that the driver did not have a valid driving licence, a copy of which was produced at the time of trial that the driver had a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle and a light transport vehicle, the contention was that he was driving a Matador Van, which was not a LMV. I have not been shown through any particular entry anywhere in the licence certificate of registration or any other document that Matador Van was a vehicle which weighed more than 7500 kgs and it did not qualify for a description as light motor vehicle. Further, it also carried a transport vehicle endorsement and I have no reason to accept the contention of the insurer that the licence was not valid to drive a Matador Van. The liability cast on the insurer is, therefore, perfectly justified. 3. As regards the negligence, it was a case of collision between the Matador Van and a truck that had been insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The deceased was a passenger in the Matador Van and there had given evidence to the effect that FAO No.2771 of 2003 -3- it was the truck, which was responsible for the accident. The learned counsel would also refer to the evidence of witness on the side of the claimants. In a case of apportionment of liability between the two vehicles involved in the accident, the evidence tendered on the side of the claimants would never conclude the issue. It is more a dispute between the respondents inter se and if the driver of the Matador Van did not adduce any evidence with reference to the negligence of the driver of the truck, then the decision of the Tribunal apportioning the liability between the two vehicles that were involved in the accident was perfectly justified. I, therefore, do not also find merit in the contention that the apportionment was wrong and the negligence must be attributed only to the driver of the truck. 4. As regards the quantum, the amount that was determined by the Tribunal was Rs.1,52,000/-. For a person who was aged 25 years, the Tribunal had considered the fact that the claimants were parents and took the dependency of the parents at Rs.800/- per month and provided a multiplier of 15. Both as regards the choice of multiplier and the multiplicand, the assessment of the Tribunal is modest. I will retain the monthly dependence but adopt a multiplier of 18 to come to the loss of dependence at Rs.1,72,800/-. I will provide for conventional heads of claim to another Rs.9500/-. The total amount that will become payable, would be Rs.1,82,300/-. The Tribunal has already awarded a compensation of Rs.1,52,600/- and the amount in excess what has already been awarded shall also attract an interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of FAO No.2771 of 2003 -4- payment. 5. The appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed and the the appeal for enhancement of claim filed at the instance of the claimants shall stand allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 13, 2010 Pankaj*