FAO No.7239 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.7239 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: April 21, 2011 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...APPELLANT VERSUS SMT. PREM KAUR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MS. VANDANA MALHOTRA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. MR. ASHWANI ARORA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2. MR. JASWINDER SINGH RANDHAWA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is by the insurance company on essentially three grounds; i) the insured's vehicle had not been involved in the accident, ii) the portion of the vehicle which was supposed to have hit the deceased that caused death was a generator and compressor attached on tow to the insured's vehicle and therefore, the same cannot be said to be a result of accident involving a motor vehicle, iii) the quantum of compensation assessed is very high. 2. As regards the contention that the vehicle had not been involved, learned counsel appearing for the insurer will rely on the statement of Gurdeep Singh in the FIR where the reference was to an FAO No.7239 of 2010 -2- unknown vehicle driven by an unknown driver. The statement was recorded from one Gurdeep Singh the following day that the vehicle involved in the accident was the insured's vehicle, therefore, it was clearly an afterthought. This contention could be examined if it was a case where the insurance company had taken a plea that the vehicle had not been involved in the accident when Gurdeep Singh had given evidence in Court. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants would point out that not even a suggestion had been made to Gurdeep Singh that involvement of vehicle as stated by him was false. In this case if we go by the statement in the FIR, it is clear that identity of the vehicle would not have been very difficult to trace, for if such an information was given after some enquiries on the next day, I will have no reason to suspect that they had collected appropriate details about the involvement of the insured's vehicle. The insurance company itself cannot take up the plea of the non-involvement of the vehicle when the defence as canvassed by the insurer was that there was no suggestion to the witness as regards the contention that the accident was not by the collision with the motor vehicle itself and that the FIR made a reference only to the generator and compressor that was on tow with the vehicle as having had hit the deceased and caused his death. The counsel would point out that the improvement in the version was made the following day when it was stated that the motor vehicle itself had caused a collision with the deceased. In the manner of understanding of what caused the accident, a certain notional extension of the meaning of use of the motor vehicle becomes essential. If the generator and compressor were to be attached on tow and it was running alongwith the vehicle and somebody comes by harm by the collision with compressor attached to the vehicle and FAO No.7239 of 2010 -3- which was seen as going as part of the vehicle itself, I will take the accident to be the result of the use of motor vehicle itself. Such notional exceptions have come even in situations where some of on-lookers and members of the public were seen taking petrol from the spilt oil from a tanker and persons had come to harm by the petrol catching on fire. It could be seen to be really a situation where they were not in physical contact with the vehicle, but it was still seen to be resultant to the use by a motor vehicle. This aspect of the case has been considered recently in the judgement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Yadu Sambhaji More & Others, reported as 2011 (1) SCALE 130. Under such circumstances, I would take that the death of the deceased was only on account of use of the motor vehicle. 3. As regards the quantum, learned counsel for the insurance company who had the benefit of defence under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act who relied also on the issue of quantum states that the deceased was earning `18,900/- and no tax had been deducted. The issue has been considered by the Tribunal by a reasoning that the deceased was also making GPF contribution and the amount as deducted fell short of `1,60,000/- and therefore, there was no necessity to pay tax. I find the reasoning to be appropriate to sustain the same. Learned counsel for the insurer also argues that the deceased was 54 years of age and he had only 4 years service left and the multiplier of 11 could not have been drawn and the last drawn salary at `18,900/- could not also have been taken which was more than 50% of the pension that he would had drawn if he had been alive. I cannot take this argument, for it has come through judicial dispensation as well as statutory provision through Schedule II that the choice of multiplier FAO No.7239 of 2010 -4- is invariably more than the number of years of service left for case of persons after the age of 50. It is on the basis that a person after his retirement does not become redundant in life and still has the capacity to earn and contribute to the family. If the normal life span were to be taken as 67 and the choice of multiplier is relatively lower in number to the years of service left upto the age of 50 and if the death occurs after 50, the value of multiplier is even larger than the number of years of service left. It factors the event of the person's contribution even after retirement from service. I, therefore, reject the contention that choice of multiplier or the multiplicand was high and I sustain the award as it was passed and dismiss the appeal by the insurer. 4. The amount of `25,000/- deposited shall stand released to the claimant. April 21, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE