IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.28-CII of 1993 in/and FAO No.1750 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:28.01.2011 M/s Rama Mandi Bus Service ....Appellant versus Hardial Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.G.S. Bawa, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Harveen Kaur, Advocate, for Mr. G.S.Punia, Advocate, for the Cross-Objectors/respondents 1 to 4. Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate, for Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.6 Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate, for Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advocate, 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 point to be decided in the appeal is whether the policy, which has been issued on 18.11.1987, must be taken as 00:00 hours on 18.11.1987 as the time of commencement of the policy. The policy refers to the commencement date as 19.11.1987 till 18.11.1988. The accident had taken place on 18.11.1987 at 8 am. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court The New India Assurance Cross Objection No.28-CII of 1993 in/and FAO No.1750 of 1992 (O&M) - 2 - Company Limited Versus Ram Dayal and others-1990(2) PLR 144 to contend that it must be taken that the policy commenced from 00:00 hours of the midnight from 18.11.1987, the date when the policy was issued. I am afraid, the attempt is a wrong reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If the policy refers to a date but fails to record the time of commencement, it should be taken that it would commence from 00:00 hours. In the manner in which the policy has issued which refers to no particular time, by the application of the law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Dayal's case, the policy must be taken as commencing from 19.11.1987 at 00:00 hours and it cannot be understood as the policy commencing from 00:00 hours on 18.11.1987 merely because the policy has been issued on 18.11.1987. The exoneration of liability of the Insurance Company was, under the circumstances, perfectly justified. There is no tenable case for the appellant to contend for. The appeal is dismissed. 2. There is a cross appeal for enhancement of claim for death of a person, who was 48 years of age. He was said to be an agriculturist and the contention was that he was earning Rs.2,500/- per month. The Tribunal took the income at Rs.1,000/- in the absence of any documentary evidence and took that to be the wage for a labourer at that time. I will retain the same. The claimants were the wife and three children and the learned counsel pleads that the Tribunal must have provided for a 1/4th deduction and the deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses is excessive. I will accede to the contention and take the contribution to the family at Rs.750/- per month and provide for a Cross Objection No.28-CII of 1993 in/and FAO No.1750 of 1992 (O&M) - 3 - multiplier of 14 against 12 taken by the Tribunal. The loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,26,000/-. I will make an additional provision of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.7,500/- towards loss of love and affection for the three children, Rs.2,500/- for loss to estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, to hold that the compensation payable would be Rs.1,43,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.86,400/- and the amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability shall be on the owner of the vehicle consistent with the finding rendered in appeal that the owner shall not have the benefit of policy of insurance. The cross objection is allowed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 28.01.2011 sanjeev