F.A.O.NO. 649 OF 2009 and 1 F.A.O.No. 650 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 649 OF 2009 Date of decision: 13th July, 2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .........Appellant Versus Dharmi Devi and others .........Respondents F.A.O.No. 650 of 2009 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .........Appellant Versus Ajay Kumar and another .......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. R.C.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident and the Insurance Company is in appeal on the issue of quantum assessed for each of the claimants. The Tribunal has granted permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to the insurer to defend the F.A.O.NO. 649 OF 2009 and 2 F.A.O.No. 650 of 2009 case on all grounds. 2. In respect of the claim arising in FAO NO. 649 of 2009, it was in respect of the death of a graduate girl who was spinster aged 26 years. The claim was made at the instance of her mother. It was in evidence that the girl was still a student but earning Rs. 3,000/- p.m. by private tuition. 3. The grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal assessed the income to be Rs. 6,000/- and in a petition filed under Section 163(A) of the Act, the Tribunal had awarded an amount which had no relevance to Schedule II and the amount which was otherwise a claim for a spinster, according to learned counsel, the contribution ought to have been taken in excess of 50% and the extent of dependence itself could be only for limited no. of years with prospect of marriage. The learned counsel would therefore, plead that the multiplier ought to be applied with reference to the age of the claimant than with the age of the deceased. 4. If the income stated in the petition was to be taken, the annual income could be Rs. 36,000/-, providing for 1/3rd towards personal expenses. The annual contribution could be taken as Rs. 24,000/- and the amount that will be payable Rs. 4,08,000/- and this will be added under the conventional heads of claim. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,90,500/-. This given amount is less than the statute provides. There is no scope for interference. The appeal is dismissed. 5. In respect of the claim in FAO NO. 650 of 2009 for F.A.O.NO. 649 OF 2009 and 3 F.A.O.No. 650 of 2009 injuries sustained by the commerce student that left limb with a fracture and lower portion of the right leg and shortening of leg to a tune of 2 cm, the evidence was that he had suffered 50% disability. No particular loss of earning power was elicited. The Tribunal while awarding compensation of Rs. 5,99,508/- set out the compensation in the following manner:- Sr. No. Head Amount (Rs.) 1 Compensation for Pain and Sufferings 1,00,000.00 2 Compensation for expenses on medical bills 1,11,508.00 3 Compensation for special diet 20000 4 Compensation for transportation charges 43000 5 Compensation for loss of income while remaining admitted in the hospital and remained on leave due to accident. 20000 6 Compensation for loss of enjoyment of amenities of life future loss of income and loss of earning capacity due to 50% disability. 3,00,000.00 7 Compensation for expenses on attendance 5000 Total 5,99,508.00 6. Learned counsel pleads that the assessment of compensation for pain and suffering for a person who had been in hospital for 58 days could not have been Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 3,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and loss of earning capacity due to 50% disability. I am of the view that the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- would have been appropriate instead of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The quantum of compensation for pain and suffering is also very high and in my view it cannot be more than Rs. 50,000/-. In all, compensation F.A.O.NO. 649 OF 2009 and 4 F.A.O.No. 650 of 2009 under these two heads, there shall be reduction of Rs. 2,50,500/-. The amount which is already determined at Rs. 5,99,508/- shall stand reduced to Rs. 3,49,008/-. The appeal is allowed in part for such modification only. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 13th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik