F.A.O.NO. 737 OF 1997 and F.A.O.NO. 823 OF 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 737 OF 1997 Date of decision:28th September, 2010 New India Ass.Co.Ltd. through Shri K.B.Bindal Legal Officer, its duly constituted Attorney Regional Office, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Paramjit Kaur and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 823 OF 1997 Paramjit Kaur and another ......Appellants Versus Agia Ram and others .......Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the claimants. Mr. V.Ramswarup, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. 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 is in appeal challenging the liability in a case where the driver while driving the vehicle dashed F.A.O.NO. 737 OF 1997 and F.A.O.NO. 823 OF 1997 2 against a tree and succumbed to injuries. The contention of the Insurer was that there could not no valid cause of action for a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for his own fault. If an accident has taken place by use of a motor vehicle, the liability of the insurer could be tested only on the terms of the policy. In this case the insurance policy covers the risk also to the driver and additional premium of Rs. 54/- has been paid. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimlesh and others versus New India Assurance Company Limited (2010) 7 SCALE 732 held that the Court shall examine the terms of the policy while addressing the liability of the insurer in a claim under Section 163-A, of the Act. 2. The award of the Tribunal making the insurer liable in such a situation is therefore, tenable and appeal by the Insurance Company is dismissed. 3. There is cross appeal for enhancement. The evidence of the claimant was that the deceased was a driver and the claimants produced one Manohar Lal who showed that he was paying Rs. 3,000/- per month to the deceased. This evidence was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that he was not the employer of the deceased and his evidence could not be taken into consideration. The Tribunal however, took the income of the deceased to be Rs. 900/- per month. Learned counsel argues that there was nothing to show that the owner had given any evidence to the effect and a mere reference to an alleged salary in a statement had been taken. In appeal it is F.A.O.NO. 737 OF 1997 and F.A.O.NO. 823 OF 1997 3 contended that the deceased had left behind a widow and a minor child and assumption of the Tribunal would have given Rs. 540/- per month for maintenance is grossly low. I am inclined to accept this statement in the absence of only specific documetary evidence that his income must be taken notionally at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. I will provide for a deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses and take contribution towards the family to be Rs. 10,000/- per annum. The deceased was aged 28 years and if I would adopt a multiplier of 18, the amount of compensation that will become payable will be Rs. 1,80,000/-. I will add Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of love and affection to minor child and provide for conventional heads, loss to estate and funeral expenses another Rs. 5,000/- and there was the compensation payable at Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded compensation of Rs. 1,11,000/- and it will stand enhanced as above and the increased amount shall also attract interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The appeal filed by the claimant shall stand allowed as referred to above. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 28th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik