IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4004 of 2005 Date of decision:15.09.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Jagdish and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.4645 of 2005 Jagdish and others ....Appellants versus Ashok Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No.4004 of 2005. Mr. Kulwant Singh Dhanora, Advocate, for the appellants in FAO No.4645 of 2005 and for respondents 1 to 3, 6 and 7 in FAO No.4004 of 2005. Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate, for the respondent No.3 in FAO No.4645 of 2005. ---- 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 appeals arise out of the same accident. The deceased was a housewife and the claimants were the husband, two major sons, two married daughters and two minor daughters. The contentions of the claimants were that the husband of the deceased owned 8 acres of land and used to cultivate 7 acres on lease and the wife was contributing in a FAO No.4004 of 2005 - 2 - large measure for augmenting the income from agriculture in dairy farm. The Tribunal, however, took her income to be Rs.1,800/- and provided for dependence of Rs.1,200/-, adopted a multiplier of 16 and determined the compensation to the husband, sons and minor daughters and excluded out of reckoning the married daughters. The married daughters are arrayed as respondents 4 and 5 in the appeal filed by the claimants. Evidently they are not aggrieved against the denial of compensation to them and, therefore, the matter would require a reconsideration only with reference to the quantum as far as the claimants appellants are concerned and the issue of liability for the appeal filed by the insurer. 2. At the time of admission, the point urged by the insurer was that the multiplier had been wrongly applied and there is no reference about its defence relating to the driver as not having a valid driving licence. In my view, the choice of multiplier which has a bearing to the compensation to be awarded shall be in the manner provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another-(2009) 6 SCC 121. This aspect of the case shall be considered in the succeeding para. The case, if at all, could be seen, as regards the insurer, only with reference to its defence that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. In this case, the owner had given evidence that he conducted a driving test and assured to himself that he had a licence. He did not however know that the licence was fake. This belief was found to be good enough justification to record a finding that the owner had not been guilty of violation of terms of the policy. FAO No.4004 of 2005 - 3 - 3. The matter relating to the quantum would require to be considered from the point of view of the fact that even if her actual financial contribution has not established, Courts have veered around to give due weightage for a householder's contribution to the family in a recent ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Agarwal and another Versus National Insurance Company and others- 2010 RAJ 262. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the fact that a householder's service has to be quantified and has also made reference to a judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in National Insurance Company Versus Minor Deepika -2009 (6) MLJ 1005 that held that the wife's contribution must be taken at least 50% of the husband's earnings. It has also suggested a principle that the value of the service must be taken to be the value of the opportunity lost. In this case, the husband was said to have been engaged in agriculture with 8 acres of land. The wife's contribution was said to be Rs.7,500/- per month, but I take that husband's services could be quantified at about Rs.6,000/- per month and I would take the value with the wife to be Rs.3,000/- per month. Two of the major daughters have been married off and, therefore, they could not be treated as dependents. Two major sons could also not to be stated to be dependents. Two minor daughters were still require to be tended. The husband would have obtained the benefit of her services. I would take therefore 1/3rd deduction as appropriate and would take the contribution to the family as Rs.2,000/- per month. I would adopt a multiplier of 14 being the appropriate multiplier for her age and take the amount payable towards extent of dependence at FAO No.4004 of 2005 - 4 - Rs.3,36,000/-. I would provide for the husband Rs.5,000/- for his loss of consortium and provide for alike amount of Rs.5,000/- to each one of his daughters. I would add a further sum of Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses and add another Rs.2,500/- towards loss to estate. In all, the amount that will become payable would be Rs.3,56,000/-. The amount in excess of what has been determined b the Tribunal shall bear interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of the payment. 4. The appeal by the Insurance Company shall stand dismissed and the appeal by the claimants shall stand enhanced in the manner referred to above. As regards the share of the minors, the same shall remain in deposit during the period of minority and shall be released to them on attaining majority. The rest of the amount shall be paid to the respective claimants. 5. Both the appeals are disposed of in the manner referred to above. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 15.09.2010 sanjeev