FAO No.1339 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. FAO No.1339 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: January 27, 2011 KAILASH CHAND AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS SHAM DEVI AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS PRESENT: MR. NAVEEN S. BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2. MR. PAUL S. SAINI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. 2. FAO No.1618 of 1992 SHAM DEVI AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS SHAMSHER SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: NONE FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR.NAVEEN S. BHARDWAJ , ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2. MR. PAUL S. SAINI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. Both the appeals are connected. The appeal by the owner- insured is FAO No.1339 of 1992 challenging the denial of entitlement to FAO No.1339 of 1992 -2- indemnity for a claim by a third party and FAO No.1618 of 1992 is for enhancement of compensation filed at the instance of the parents for death of a bachelor aged 21 years. 2. As regards the finding of the Tribunal that the driver was not duly licenced, the appellants had moved an application before the appellate Court for reception of additional evidence and this Court by an interim order directed the evidence to be tendered before the Tribunal and called for a report from MACT, Hisar. The Tribunal has sent the report on 28.5.1993, which is brought on record that returns a finding that at the relevant time when the accident took place on 15.3.1991, the driver was driving a four wheeler which was a Light Motor Vehicle and he had a valid driving licence. I take the finding in the report to be correct and hold that the owner-insured was entitled to full indemnity for the claim arising out of the accident. The award of the Tribunal providing to the insurer a right of recovery shall, therefore, be set aside and I hold that the claimants are entitled to enforce a claim against the insurer and the owner-insured shall be entitled to full indemnity thereof. 3. The appeal by the owner-insured is consequently allowed, as regards the limit of liability. 4. FAO No.1618 of 1992 is for enhancement of compensation, but the counsel for the appellant is not present. I will not hold the case without disposal for the absence of the counsel and having regard to the fact that the case is pending for nearly two decades, I will proceed to dispose of the case on merits. 5. The parents of the deceased had not brought on record anything to show that he was earning, although the Tribunal took the income to be FAO No.1339 of 1992 -3- `900/- and provided for 1/3rd deduction and adopted a multiplier of 16 and determined the compensation at `1,15,200/-. Although there have been decisions post 2000 providing for higher compensation in the manner of determination of income for the relevant time, the provision of `900/- on the basis that if he was a daily wager, the assessment that he would have earned at least `30/- per day cannot said to be off the mark. I would take the income as established at `900/- and if a multiplier to be adopted were to depend on the age of the claimant, the compensation will still fall short of 1 lac of rupees. The assessment of a compensation to the parents at `1,15,200/- at that relevant time seems to me just and I find no cause for intervention for enhancement. 6. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. January 27, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE