F.A.O.NO. 3134 of 1999 and Cross Objection NO. 80-CII of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 3134 of 1999 and Cross Objection NO. 80-CII of 2000 Date of decision:22nd July, 2010 United India Insurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Rajesh Kumar and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. V.Ramswroop, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. N.K.Sanghi, Advocate, for the claimants/objectors. 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. The Insurance Company pleads that the driver had only licence for medium and heavy vehicles and he did not have licence for driving tractor. There is no particular category of vehicle of tractor in the form of licence, as stipulated under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has referred to this aspect that licence to drive a medium and heavy vehicle shall be taken to include licence to drive a tractor. I do not find any error in reasoning of the Tribunal, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. F.A.O.NO. 3134 of 1999 and Cross Objection NO. 80-CII of 2000 2 2. There is also a cross objection for enhancement by the claimants. The death was of woman aged 25 years and the claimants were husband and a minor son. In evidence the husband stated that the wife was doing an embroidery work and was earning Rs.2,500/-. The Tribunal took the income to be Rs.2,500/- and took the contribution to the family as Rs. 1,000/- and ascertained Rs. 12,000/- as the annual dependency. The Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 16 and determined compensation of Rs.1,90,000/-. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal ought to have provided Rs.2500/- as his income and must have taken 1,700/- as a contribution to the family in case where there was no specific evidence available with reference to the income. I do not find any error in the extent of dependence ascertained by the Tribunal. However, I am of the view that the choice of the multiplier ought to have been 17 for a woman who was aged 25 years. It also ought to have provided under conventional heads of claim for loss of consortium for the husband and for loss of love and affection for the minor child. I estimate the same to be Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium for the husband and Rs.5,000/- for love and affection of the minor child, another Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate and another Rs.2500/- for funeral expenses. In all the amount shall be at Rs.2,24,000/- . The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 1,92,000/- and therefore, there is addition of Rs. 32,000/- over what has been already awarded. This additional amount Rs. 32,000/- bears F.A.O.NO. 3134 of 1999 and Cross Objection NO. 80-CII of 2000 3 the interest @7.5% from the date of the award of the Tribunal till the date of the payment. The cross objection is partly allowed in above terms. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 22nd July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik