FAO No.1587 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1587 of 1995 Date of Decision. 23.08.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ......Appellant Versus Sultan Singh s/o Neki Ram and others .....Respondents 2. X Obj. No.14-CII of 1999 in/and FAO No.1588 of 1995 National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ......Appellant Versus Sukhdevi and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. 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 two cases arise out of awards for death of the driver and cleaner of a truck, who while parking the vehicle and going underneath the vehicle to examine some defect, yet another person whose identity was not disclosed started the vehicle that ran over the driver and the cleaner to kill them on the spot. A gruesome and unfortunate incident did not leave even for the representatives of FAO No.1587 of 1995 -2- the deceased quick and answerable response through the insurance company but a contest was entered denying liability on the ground that the accident could not be said to be due to the negligence of any one particular person. If there was negligence, the driver himself was guilty of such negligence by going under the truck and inviting upon himself a circumstance for an accident. 2. A driver or the cleaner going under the vehicle for examining it cannot be taken to be a negligence act, if ultimately death resulted by yet another person driving the same. In my view, it will irrelevant to see whether the identity of such a person was established or not so far as there is no plea of violation of terms of policy. The cause for death is obviously by the use of a motor vehicle and if there was a negligence even apart from a person, who was not either the driver or the cleaner, the insurer shall still be bound to answer the claim in view of the policy that extends an insurance cover to a person, who has died by the use of the motor vehicle. 3. Learned Senior Counsel also argues that if any liability were to be seen, it should have been only scaled down to the compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Tribunal could not have considered the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In my view, even such a contention is not tenable, for if the policy was not merely an Act Policy by the payment of basic premium but a specific insurance cover had also been taken for the driver and the cleaner by paying extra premium, any death or injury shall give an adequate cause of action for the FAO No.1587 of 1995 -3- representatives to make the insurer liable under a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 4. The award for the compensation of the death of the driver as well as the cleaner found for Rs.1,44,000/- and Rs.96,000/- respectively. The awards are modest and they would require no intervention in appeal. The awards are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed. 5. There is also cross objection filed for enhancement of compensation in FAO No.1588 of 1995. The cross appeal is at the instance of the representatives of the deceased driver. The driver was stated to be 25 years of age at the time of his accident and the claimants were widow and mother of the deceased. The Tribunal had fixed the dependence at Rs.1,000/-, which was one half of the amount of the salary. The contention of the claimants in the cross appeal is that the dependency should have been taken as Rs.1400/- after deducting 1/3rd and the choice of multiplier at 12 was again grossly low considering the fact that he was 25 years of age. I find merit in such a contention and if the monthly income was Rs.2,000/-, I would provide for a deduction of 1/3rd and arrive at the contribution to be Rs.1330/-. The yearly dependence ought to have been taken as Rs.15,960/- and adopting a multiplier of 17, the amount of compensation that should have become payable shall Rs.2,71,320/-. Providing for the conventional heads of claim for loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss to estate, it shall bear an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- that will make it to Rs.2,81,320/- and which I will round off as Rs.2,81,500/-. The amount in excess of FAO No.1587 of 1995 -4- what has been determined by the Tribunal shall attract interest @6% from the date of petition till the date of payment and it shall again be apportioned in the ratio of 70:30 between the widow and the mother, in the manner done by the Tribunal. 6. The cross appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 23, 2010 Pankaj*