FAO No.727 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH X Obj No.63-CII of 1987 and FAO No.727 of 1987 Date of Decision. 07.01.2011 Smt. Santra widow of Hazari Lal and others ......Appellants Versus Ram Niwas alias Bale Ram and others ......Respondents Present: None for the appellant. None for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3. 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 case is of the year 1987 and there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. I do not want to either dismiss it for default or merely adjourn it to another date to await the presence of the counsel. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent is present and I proceed to examine the case on its merits in the absence of the counsel. 2. The deceased was an agriculturist labour aged about 52 years. The evidence was that he was used to earn Rs.15 to Rs.20 per day. The Tribunal took the income to be Rs.600/-, took the contribution to the family at Rs.400/- and adopted a multiplier of 13. For a claim at the instance of the widow and three children, the Tribunal could have taken a higher contribution as available to the family but even then it FAO No.727 of 1987 -2- was compensated by the fact that it had adopted a multiplier of 13, which was slightly on the higher side. Even the liability that was made subsequently through Schedule II, it provides for a multiplier of 10 between age group of 50 years to 55 years. Even Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 provides for a multiplier of only 11 for a person who was above the age of 50 years. The compensation that was determined, I am of the view does not suffer from any inadequacy and I do not find that there is any need for reappraisal of compensation. 3. The insurance Company has also filed a cross objection contending that its own liability is restricted to Rs.50,000/- as statutorily provided and is expressly stated in the terms of the policy. I have examined the terms of the policy and there is a clear reference of limitation of liability as Rs.50,000/- in any one of accident. The amount awarded by the Tribunal shall be enforceable against the insurance company to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and the amount in excess shall be recovered from the owner insured and the driver. 4. The award is confirmed in all respects except the modification as regards restriction of liability for the insurance company. The appeal is dismissed and the cross objection is allowed to the above extent. If the insurance company had already paid the entire amount, the right of recovery shall be against the insured owner only and not against the claimants. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 07, 2011 Pankaj*