FAO No.1287 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** FAO No.1287 of 2000 Date of decision : 5.5.2011 United India Insurance Company Limited, Delhi ....Appellant Vs. Smt.Kirpa and others .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present:- Mr.R.M.Suri, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 6 Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.7 Ms.Manisha Sahota, Advocate, for respondent No.8 --- K.KANNAN, J (ORAL) :- 1. The appeal is by the Insurance Company denying the liability and the quantum. 2. The first argument made by the counsel for the Insurance Company is that the insured was Ram Chander Jain but he had not been a party and the case was filed against one Jagan Lal, who claimed to be the owner. If the policy of insurance, at the relevant time, is an admitted fact and if there was also no contention that there was no collusion between the claimant and the owner and the driver, I only take the assertion of the second respondent as an owner as obtaining by transfer. Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles FAO No.1287 of 2000 -2- Act will take a deemed transfer of policy of insurance to make the insurer liabile in such a situation. The liability on the Insurance Company cannot, therefore, be doubted. 3. On the issue of quantum, the contention is that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the evidence, which was placed on record and although the issue of quantum is not available for the Insurance Company to join the issue with. I permitted the insurer to address the arguments only to show that the consideration of the Tribunal was perverse on documentary evidence adduced before the Tribunal. The point urged out by the learned counsel is that the Tribunal had taken the age of the deceased at 32 years by the fact that there was a reference to his age at 32 years in the post mortem certificate. The birth certificate produced, showed that he was born in the year 1952 and therefore, at the time when the accident had taken place in the year 1997, he should have been 45 years of age. The observation of the Tribunal that he was 32 years of age could not, therefore, be correct. Further, it was seen that even the eldest amongst children was 15 years of age at the time petition was filed. This is inconcievable that the deceased could have been only 32 years of age at the time of death. I, therefore, find the age to be 45 years and take the multiplier applicable as 14, as suggested by the Supreme Court in 'Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121'. 4. Taking the issue further, I will make a deduction of 1/4th instead of 1/3rd as adopted by the Tribunal since there were six FAO No.1287 of 2000 -3- dependents and as per the above decision if the income of the deceased is to be taken as ` 3000/- as done by the Tribunal, the contribution to the family would have been ` 2250/-and by adopting the multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency must have been ` 3,78,000/-. I will add ` 5000/-for loss of consortium to the wife and ` 2500/-for each of the minor children as loss of love and affection and also provided for ` 5000/-towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The overall compensation would be ` 3,95,500/-. Consequently, the award determined by the Tribunal will stand reduced as above. 5. The amount shall be distributed in the same proportion in which the Tribunal has already provided amongst the claimants. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. The liability shall be in the same manner amongst the respondents as provided by the Tribunal. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 5.5.2011 akm