F.A.O.NO. 98 OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 98 OF 2010 Date of decision:27th August, 2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Santra and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.P.Chahar, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 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 appeal is by the Insurance Company. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in a case of claim by the parents for the death of 20 years old bachelor son, the owner and the driver had appeared through counsel but they had closed the evidence without recording any evidence. The Insurance Company suspected collusion and moved an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Tribunal without deciding the issue had proceeded to pass the award. F.A.O.NO. 98 OF 2010 2 2. In the appeal by the Insurance Company, it is contended that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal in not deciding the application under Section 170 of the Act was erroneous. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that this argument is advanced without any specific ground taken in memorandum of appeal. I see that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal is illegal and therefore, would make an intervention, no matter that no specific ground has been taken in appeal. I therefore, grant permission to the appellant to argue the case on the question of quantum on the application filed by the applicant before the Tribunal and which was left undecided. 3. On the question of quantum, learned counsel would contend that the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,500/- on the ipse dixit for the claimant that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,500/- in agricultural operation and diary farming. With no material to substantiate such a contention, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the statutory minimum of Rs. 15,000/- in Schedule II must have been adopted when there was no proof of income. I cannot also accept the contention that young man of 20 years barely out of teens was earning Rs. 3,500/- as an unskilled labourer. On such a skeletal evidence the Tribunal ought not have taken the income at Rs. 3500/-. I would take therefore, only income to be Rs. 15,000/- provide for an extent of dependence to 2/3rd of the same, and adopt a multiplier of 16 for a person aged 20 years as provided under Schedule II. The F.A.O.NO. 98 OF 2010 3 amount that will become payable would be therefore, Rs. 1,60,000/-. I would also add towards conventional heads of claim for loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses in the manner provided by Schedule II at Rs. 9,500/-. The amount that will become payable under all heads would therefore, be Rs. 1,69,500/-. I would raise it to Rs. 1,70,000/-. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would contend that as per the dispensation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court an amount of another Rs. 50,000/- is added as special damages even for death of minor children and the minimum compensation which is dispensed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is Rs. 2,00,000/-. A claim for compensation for a person who is not a child is an adult cannot be anything less than what is provided by the Supreme Court in the said decision. I would, therefore, award an additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- and provide Rs. 2,20,000/- as the compensation payable to the claimants. The amount shall bear the same rate of interest as determined by the Tribunal. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 27th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik