FAO No.1855 of 1997 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1855 of 1997 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: April 28, 2011 KALAWANTI AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS KULDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. ASHIT MALIK, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR. INDERJEET SHARMA, ADVOCATE AND MR. PARDEEP BEDI, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) C.M. No.10814-CII of 2011 C.M. allowed. Main Case 1. The case is taken up for disposal with the consent of both the parties. The appeal is for enhancement of claim of compensation as well as appropriate direction for making the liability of the respondents as joint and several in respect of making possible a recovery only to the apportioned amounts as done by the Tribunal. 2. The deceased was scooter borne and the accident occurred when the private car opened its door knocking the scooterist down and when a tractor which was insured ran over him causing fatal injuries. The FAO No.1855 of 1997 (O&M) -2- Tribunal apportioned the liability between the two vehicles, namely, the tractor and the car in equal proportion and assessed a compensation of `4,28,000/- as payable to the petitioners in equal proportion by the owner of the car and the insurer of the tractor. 3. Learned counsel has grievance both as regards the quantum as well as the manner of apportionment. As regards the quantum, the evidence was that the deceased was earning `6850/- and the deceased was over 51 years of age. I will adopt the scales of compensation as provided by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported as 2009 6 SCC 121 and rework the compensation as follows. 4. The annual income was `82,200/- and the Tribunal had already deducted `5000/- as going towards the tax. The net salary would have been `77,200/- and if a 1/4th were to be deducted, the contribution to the family would have been `57,900/- and if a multiplier of 11 were to be taken, the loss of dependency comes out to be `6,36,900/-. The Tribunal had awarded `20,000/- towards treatment and conventional heads of claim which I will retain. The total compensation will be `6,56,900/-, which I will round-off to `6,57,000/-. 5. Learned counsel states that since the car had not been insured, the claimants have not been able to recover any amount from the car owner against whose owner 50% liability had been cast. According to the learned counsel, the liability shall always be joint and several in cases of composite negligence and the claimant shall have the liberty to enforce the entire award against the insurer and the insurer shall have a right of recovery against the owner of the car. The proposition made by the counsel conforms FAO No.1855 of 1997 (O&M) -3- to law and I accordingly provide to the claimants a right of recovery of the entire amount against the insurance company as an insurer for the owner whose driver was a joint tort-feasor with the driver of the car and the insurance company in-turn shall have a right of contribution from the owner of the car to the extent of 50%. 6. The amount determined in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 7. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. April 28, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE