IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 779 of 1987 and Cross Objection Nos.17-CII of 1988 Date of Decision: 17.11.2008 The New India Assurance Company. ....... Appellant through Shri Deepak Suri,Advocate. Versus Radhu Ram and others. ....... Respondent no.1-Cross Objector through Shri Arun Nehra, Advocate. Respondent nos.2 to 5 through Nemo. Respondent no.6 through Shri S.S.Dalal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross objections preferred by the owner- respondent no.1 against award dated 1.4.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T.Case No.18 of 1985. The appellant has raised the solitary plea that it was not liable to satisfy the award as the deceased-Balwan, who was travelling in the ill- fated truck, was travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle and since the F.A.O.No.779 of 1987 and Cross Objection Nos.17-CII of 1988 -2- .... terms of the insurance policy did not cover a passenger in a goods vehicle, it could not be saddled with the responsibility to pay the compensation. The accident in this case occurred on 23.4.1985. Concededly, the case of the claimants, as per their own showing in the claim petition, was that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the offending truck. A specific plea was also raised by the appellant where in paragraph 4 of the written statement, it seriously questioned its liability because of the aforesaid fact. The Tribunal, however, did not advert to this aspect of the matter and fastened the appellant with the liability to satisfy the award. It is a settled principle of law that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation in such cases where a person is travelling in a vehicle not authorised to carry passengers, i.e., a goods vehicle. Reference can be made in this regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. Versus Cholleti Bhartamma and others, 2008(1) P.L.R. 315 (S.C.). Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant deserves to be accepted. Respondent no.1, who is owner of the offending truck, has filed the cross objections assailing the award on the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for respondent no.1-cross objector contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. A multiplier of `20' has been applied even though the facts suggest that at best, a multiplier F.A.O.No.779 of 1987 and Cross Objection Nos.17-CII of 1988 -3- .... of `16' could have been applied. He further contended that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. I have considered this aspect of the matter. The deceased was a labourer. His income was assessed as Rs.500/- per month. He was survived by father, widow and two minor children. The dependency of the claimants was taken as Rs.350/- per month and multiplier of `20' has been adopted to arrive at a figure of Rs.84,000/-. This amount was directed to be paid to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In my opinion, considering the fact that the income of the deceased was meagre, the dependency of the claimants ought to have been assessed by deducting only Rs.100/- on account of his personal expenses. If the dependency is assessed in this manner, then it works out to Rs.400/- per month. In this manner, if the gain in the dependency is to be seen, then it adequately off-sets the higher multiplier that has been applied by the Tribunal. Therefore, even if the plea of the cross objector is accepted, it would not make any substantial difference so far as the amount of compensation is concerned. In any eventuality, the Court is to see that just compensation is paid to the claimants. Since the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is only Rs.84,000/-, it cannot be termed to be excessive. Therefore, the same does not warrant any interference. However, in so far as the rate of interest is concerned, it deserves to be lowered down. In my view, it would be serve the ends of F.A.O.No.779 of 1987 and Cross Objection Nos.17-CII of 1988 -4- .... justice if it is directed that the compensation be paid to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. Ordered accordingly. The liability to pay the compensation and interest shall be that of the respondent no.1-owner of the offending truck. The impugned award is modified to the above extent. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the cross objections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. November 17,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge