IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.2-CII of 2000 in/and FAO No.1840 of 1998 Date of decision:06.08.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Manju and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate, for the respondent/cross objector. ---- 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 is in appeal on an award passed passed under Section 163-A on the ground that the Tribunal did not follow the formula prescribed under Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act but adopted its own calculation that was at variance with the provisions of the Act. It was a case of death of a passenger in a van which dashed against a stationary truck. The deceased was said to be a partner in business drawing an income of Rs.2,750/- with increments of Rs.250/- every year. The Tribunal took the income as Rs.2,750/- provided for a deduction of 1/4th for his own expenses and adopted a multiplier of 18 to arrive at a compensation of Rs.4,32,000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would contend that Schedule-II mandates that 1/3rd amount shall go for deduction towards personal expenses and Cross Objection No.2-CII of 2000 in/and FAO No.1840 of 1998 - 2 - only the remaining could have been taken as the contribution to the family. There is no discretion left with the Tribunal while applying the formula given under Section 163-A especially when the claim is made under the said provision without undertaking the task of proving the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. In my view, therefore, the compensation has to be reworked in the manner provided under the Act. 2. If the income of the deceased were to be taken as Rs.2,750/-, the amount that shall be taken as monthly contribution to the family after providing a deduction of 1/3rd shall be Rs.1,835/-. For a person aged 40 years, the appropriate multiplier would have been 15 and not 18. The amount that shall become payable will be Rs.3,30,300/-. Over this amount shall be provided another Rs.10,000/- going towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss to estate that would make Rs.3,40,300/- as the amount payable to the claimants. The amount awarded in excess of the same shall not be permissible under a claim made under Section 163-A. 3. The award of the Tribunal shall therefore be modified to the amount as mentioned above. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent and the cross appeal is also disposed of in terms of the above. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 06.08.2010 sanjeev