F.A.O.No. 1389 of 1991 & F.A.O.NO. 1390 OF 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 1389 of 1991 Date of decision:13th July, 2010 Kalgidhar Roadways and another ......Appellants Versus Malkiat Kaur and others F.A.O.NO. 1390 OF 1991 Kalgidhar Roadways and another .......Appellants Versus Jasbir Kaur and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate for Mrs. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, 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 are against the same award filed jointly by the owner and the insurer. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chinnama George and others Vs. N.K. Raju and another 2000 (4) SCC 130 that such appeals are not maintainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that F.A.O.No. 1389 of 1991 & F.A.O.NO. 1390 OF 1991 2 in such cases the insurer shall be transposed as respondents and the appeals could be permitted to be continued by the insured only. Accordingly, it is ordered that the insurance company is transposed as respondent No. 6 in FAO NO. 1389 of 1991 and respondent No. 5 in FAO No. 1390 of 1991 and the appeals shall be taken as having been filed only by the insured. The registry is directed to carry out the amendment to the memo of parties after transposition in the manner referred to above. 2. If the case is taken up for consideration with reference to quantum, it is seen in FAO NO. 1389 of 1991, the claimants were widow, minor son, minor daughter and parents. The Tribunal has relied on the evidence and witnesses to ascertain the income to be Rs. 2,479/- after providing for personal expenses, dependency taken has to be Rs.1,850/-. It has adopted a multiplier of 18 and granted a compensation of Rs. 3,99,600/-. Learned counsel states that the multiplier adopted for a person who has aged 30 years is wrong. It is also contended by him that the age assessed as 30 itself was incorrect, having regard to the fact that the petitioner disclosed the age as 40 . 3. As regards the age, the Tribunal has referred to the explanation given by the widow that she had wrongly given the age as 40 and she has accepted that the father in law was 52 or 53 years in age. The Tribunal has reasoned that if her father in law was aged 52 or 53 years there could not have been a son with a age difference of only 10 or 12 years. The Tribunal has also referred to the post mortem certificate which gives the age F.A.O.No. 1389 of 1991 & F.A.O.NO. 1390 OF 1991 3 of the deceased as 30 years. If the age we have to be taken as 30 years multiplier would have been 17. For the extent of dependence assessed, the compensation payable would have been Rs. 3,77,400/-. If the loss of consortium were to be assessed for the wife at Rs. 10,000/- and for loss of love and affection for each child were to be assessed at Rs.5,000/- and also provide for funeral expenses and loss to estate amount determined would have been more than Rs. 3,99,600/-. The amount awarded is therefore, appropriate and there is no need for any interference. 4. As regards the claim in FAO NO. 1390 of 1991, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased who was aged 29 years at Rs. 1329/- and after providing for personal expenses at Rs. 379/- assessed the dependency at Rs. 950/- and after adopting a multiplier of 18, provided for compensation at Rs. 2,05,200/-. The claimants bear a minor son, minor daughter, widow and father, even if multiplier of 17 were to be taken, and conventional heads of claim that have to be provided in the manner dealt with in the connected appeal, it would be seen the then the total amount of claim will be in excess of Rs. 2,05,200/-. Here again there is no scope of interference. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 13th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik