IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4409 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision:30.09.2010 New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Raj Rani and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the 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 Insurance Company is in appeal challenging liability on the ground that the claimants had averred that the deceased was earning more than Rs.40,000/- per year and the application, however, had been filed under Section 163-A. The petition was, therefore, not maintainable in terms of express provision in the statute in Schedule-II and in the light of the interpretation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this provision in Deepal Girish Bhai Soni & others Versus United India Insurance Company Limited-2004 ACJ 934. 2. The version of the claimant was that the deceased was a passenger in a three-wheeler that drove into a ditch while proceeding to FAO No.4409 of 2003 (O&M) - 2 - Solan. In the manner in which the incident was narrated and admitted at the trial, it had been amply proved that the driver had been negligent. The driver is supposed to drive the vehicle on road and the driver, who drove the vehicle into the ditch, is clearly negligent and it would answers a res ipsa loquitur situation. Even if the claim therefore cannot be examined under Section 163-A, I would treat it as a claim under Section 166 and find that the driver of the vehicle was negligent in his driving. 3. If the negligence is established then the issue is only whether a case has obtained appropriate treatment for compensation. The Tribunal, on proof of the fact that he had been employed as a Clerk in railway, drawing salary of Rs.4,830/-, that he was 25 years of age, it had applied a multiplier of 17, deducted 1/3rd for his personal consumption and determined compensation. As regards the choice of the multiplicand and the multiplier, it accords with law and the total compensation arrived at by the Tribunal, under the circumstances, could be seen to be justified. 4. The appeal by the Insurance Company is consequently dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.09.2010 sanjeev