FAO No.3639 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3639 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:19.05.2011 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Manager SCO 147-148, 1st Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh (through its Manager Legal), SCO NO.212-214, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Paramjit Kaur and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Vandanaa Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The appeal by the insurance company is on the issue of quantum and negligence. The insurance company had applied for defence under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act but it was refused. The appeal by the insurance company under such a situation where the Tribunal did not have any reason to suspect collusion, is not permissible. 2. Even to satisfy myself, whether the award has been passed justifiably, I am convinced that the Tribunal has applied the correct reasoning for arriving at the issue of negligence and quantum. Learned counsel argues that it was a case of collision of the scooter which the deceased was driving against a motor cycle, which was going in front and the accident was supposed to have taken place when motor cycle took a left turn. Learned counsel states that since the deceased was FAO No.3639 of 2011(O&M) -2- driving the vehicle from behind, he ought to have applied caution but only by his rash and negligent driving, it resulted in a collision from behind. It must, therefore, be taken that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. The Tribunal however found that it was the act of the driver of the motor cycle, which resulted in collision, on the basis of evidence produced before it and I do not find any reason to differ with the same. 3. On the issue of quantum, it is contended by the counsel that the deceased was 50 years of age and not 48 years. The issue of age itself does not appear to have been seriously contested and here the Tribunal took the age of the deceased on the basis of evidence produced before it and applied also a provision for future increase of 30% in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121. The overall compensation determined at Rs.14,55,200/- conforms to law in all its parameters and I would find no reason to interfere with the same. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 19, 2011 Pankaj*