IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2050 of 2005 Date of decision: 22.07.2010 United India Insurance Company ....Appellant versus Smt. Premo and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 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 challenges the liability and quantum on the ground that the driver did not have valid driving licence. It is also urged by the insurer that the quantum awarded is excessive and a wrong multiplier has been applied. As regards the validity of the licence of the driver, who was driving the offending vehicle which was a tractor. It has been stated in the grounds of appeal that they had placed on record the evidence of Wazir Singh RW-2 that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. It is not explained anywhere as to the nature of evidence let in through Wazir Singh except a broad statement that the FAO No.2050 of 2005 - 2 - driver did not have a valid driving licence. The evidence of Wazir Singh is itself not placed on record before this Court for a reappraisal. The plea, therefore, that the diver did not have a valid driving licence, is without any basis. 2. As regards the quantum, the appellant claims that the Insurance Company was afforded an opportunity to contest the case on all grounds in its application under Section 170. The deceased was a student and he was used to earning Rs.8,000/- as commission from LIC. PW2 Bhim Singh also gave evidence to the effect that the deceased owned some lands. The claimants 1 and 2 were the mother and father respectively. The other claimants were sisters and brother. The Tribunal referred to Ex.P4 to enter a finding that the deceased was earning Rs.13,372/- per annum taking the income to be Rs.1,100/- per month and the fact that he was a student, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,50,000/- as a compensation. It found that the father was not in any way dependent on the deceased and disallowed the claim for him. Claimants 4 and 5, who are minor siblings of the deceased, were however found to be partially dependent. Though the Tribunal has not given a split up of amounts as to how it was arrived at, I still find that even going by the schedule-II prescribed under the Act, his notional income of Rs.15,000/- could be to be taken as the amount of income, and after adopting a suitable multiplier for the death of a person, who was aged 22 years, the compensation payable would have been in excess of Rs.2,50,000/-. The Tribunal has not even considered the conventional heads of claim like, loss of love and affection for parents, loss to estate, funeral expenses, etc. FAO No.2050 of 2005 - 3 - I do not think there is a scope for intervention on a modest award passed for Rs.2,50,000/- for death of a person. The appeal is dismissed as wholly without merit. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22.07.2010 sanjeev