FAO No.1517 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1517 of 2003 Date of Decision. 22.09.2010 National Insurance Company Limited SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Asstt. Admin Officer ......Appellant Versus Ashok Kumar son of Tala Ram husband of Smt. Luxmi deceased and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Patiyal, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. D.S. Bishnoi, Advocate for respondent No.6. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel for U.T. for respondent Nos.7 and 8. 2. FAO No.1374 of 2003 Ashok Kumar son of Tala Ram husband of Smt. Luxmi deceased and others ......Appellant Versus Union of India through Secretary Surface Department, Govt. of India, New Delhi and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjeev Patiyal, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. D.S. Bishnoi, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel for U.T. for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.4. FAO No.1517 of 2003 -2- 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 appeals arise out of the same accident containing a claim for compensation at the instance of the husband and minor children of a housewife. The Tribunal while taking the value of her services to be Rs.3,000/- per month, took the extent of dependence at Rs.2500/- and adopted a multiplier of 16. The insurance company challenges the award on the ground that the application had been filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act but the Tribunal had applied the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to arrive at the compensation. The claimants themselves are in appeal to contend that when provisions of Section 163-A were invoked then the appropriate multiplier alone must have been taken and there could not have been reduction of the multiplier. 2. As regards the value of the services of a householder, I have no difficulty in upholding the service of a householder at Rs.3,000/- per month, as adopted by a Division Bench of Madras High Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Minor Deepika 2009 (6) MLJ 1005 and later affirmed in principle by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Aggarwal and another Vs. National Insurance Company 2010 RAJ 262. If the value of services were to be taken as Rs.3,000/-, a direction for reduction of 1/3rd and application of 17 as multiplier are the other natural consequences. FAO No.1517 of 2003 -3- The amount of compensation ought to have been, therefore, taken as Rs.4,8,000/- and if the conventional heads of claim for loss of consortium to the husband, funeral expenses and loss to estate that would be an additional amount of Rs.9,500/- is to be added, in all the total amount payable would be Rs.4,17,500/-. The amount that is now held in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal, shall bear an interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 3. The award of the Tribunal is modified to make for an enhancement in the manner referred to above. The appeal by the insurance company is dismissed and the appeal filed for enhancement by the claimants is allowed. All the amounts shall be taken equally between the husband and the children. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE September 22, 2010 Pankaj*