IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1276 of 2009 Date of decision:27.07.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Manjit Singh and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.3291 of 2009 Manjit Singh and others ....Appellants versus Rakesh Kumar and and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Jagat Kural, Advocate, for Mr.D.P.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No.1276 of 2009 and for respondent No.3 in FAO No.3291 of 2009 None for other 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 two appeals arise out of the same accident. The Insurance Company is on an issue of quantum and negligence having had the benefit of permission to take defence on all grounds under Section 170 of the MV Act. The claimants are in appeal for enhancement in FAO No.3291 of 2009. FAO No.1276 of 2009 - 2 - 2. The learned counsel for the insurer contends that it was a case of head on collision on a road and the Tribunal ought to have therefore apportioned the liability between both the drivers and made deduction for contributory negligence. The Tribunal took into consideration an eye-witness account of CW2 Manpreet Singh, who spoke about the rash and negligence driving and there was no contra evidence supplied on the side of the insurers to deny the negligence attributed to the driver of the insured. I do not therefore accept the contention that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 3. As regards the quantum, the learned counsel would state that the deceased was a Deputy Librarian in Punjab University and the husband and the sons, who are claimants, were all themselves well provided for. The husband was a Manager in the Punjab & Sind Bank and one of the sons was in business. They had sufficient earning for their own and they were not dependent on the deceased. While the extent of dependence is invariably relevant when we are considering a case of compensation, it will be wrong to assume that in cases where the spouses are not financially dependent on each other, there could be no claim for compensation. Here the contribution of one spouse to other, goes to augment the resources of the family and leaves behind a larger corpus for their mutual material benefit. The expression used under Section 166 by a legal representative” ought not to be restricted to mean only “legal dependents. A legal representative which is even a wider term than a legal heir would be entitled to seek for compensation on the basis of FAO No.1276 of 2009 - 3 - what portion of money would have become available, to the family and which would have become a part of the estate of the deceased. The compensation that is awarded by the Court in all cases is the loss that has occasioned to the estate of the deceased. Therefore, I reject the contention that the spouse and the son are well off and they were not dependents on the deceased. The compensation could be granted to them in the scale in which it was adopted by the Tribunal. In this case, the Tribunal had evidence before it that the deceased was drawing a sum of Rs.34,027/- per month and the Tribunal had taken deduction for income tax, CPF, house rent allowances and the take-home salary of Rs.27,000/- alone was taken into account. It provided for personal expenses of the deceased to an extent of 1/3rd and took the contribution to the family to be Rs.18,000/- per month and assessed Rs.2,16,000/- per year as the contribution to the family. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 6 and arrived at a compensation of Rs.12,96,000/-. It further added Rs.4,000/- towards funeral expenses. Out of the total sum, Rs.7 lakhs was determined as payable to the husband and the two sons were each found entitled to Rs.3 lakhs. The assessment of compensation has been fair and just and I do not think that there is a scope for intervention. 4. Although the claimants have preferred an appeal for enhancement, there is no appearance on their behalf. I have already examined the compensation which has been determined by the Tribunal and I am of the view that it addresses all claims except perhaps it has not provided for loss of consortium to the husband and made any specific provision for a loss of estate. When we are making an assessment of an FAO No.1276 of 2009 - 4- overall consideration of Rs.13 lakhs, the want of provision under the above heads could not have made any significant difference. I sustain the award the way it is and the appeal filed by the claimants is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.07.2010 sanjeev