IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.59-CII of 2005 in/and FAO No.20 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision:18.08.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Smt. Sushila Kumari and others ....Respondents II. FAO No.21 of 2000 (O&M) United India Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Smt. Banto and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Manmohan, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. In both the appeals, the Insurance Company is in appeal challenging liability on the ground that the particular cover note which was said to have been issued to the owner of the offending vehicle was fake and it had not been issued to the said owner at all. 2. Before the Tribunal, the Assistant Divisional Manager of the FAO No.20 of 2000 (O&M) - 2 - Insurance Company Shri Bikramjit Singh had been examined to say that the cover note No.0782881 had been issued in the name of Smt. Seema for a maruti car and had not been issued in the name of the owner of the truck Shri Charan Singh. The Tribunal still did not accept the evidence only on account of the fact that in the cross-examination, he had admitted that the issuing office of the cover note showed that it was Karol Bagh, New Delhi and the Tribunal found that in the whole of the evidence of the witness, there had been nothing elicited that he had brought the records of the Karol Bagh office. He also accepted the suggestion put to him that without looking into the original registers, he shall not be in a position to say whether the cover note produced by the owner had been really issued in his name or not. Even the evidence of yet another person Ramesh Goel was not sufficient to find that the cover note was fake because he had stated in the cross-examination that at the time of issuing cover note whatever amount was received from party, receipts would have been prepared and such receipt books were available in the Insurance Company's office, and hence, the non-production of which was taken by the Tribunal as a circumstance to show that the Insurance Company had not proved that the cover note had not been issued to the insured. 3. The reasoning of the Tribunal is comprehensive and addresses every aspect that was required to be noticed. I do not find any error in reasoning to subject the awards to any modification or alteration. The awards are confirmed and the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed. FAO No.20 of 2000 (O&M) - 3 - 4. There is also a cross appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The claim relates to a death of an unmarried person and the claimants were the parents. Taking into account the prospect of marriage and the likely reduction in contribution to the family where younger among the claimants was 52 years, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 11 suitable for a person of 52 years and determined the compensation of Rs.1,98,000/-. The Tribunal did not provide for love and affection for the parents and the other conventional heads of claim. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier as per the judgment of Sarla Verma. There is no error in the choice of multiplier but perhaps the only additional that would become payable would be to provide for Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection and an additional Rs.10,000/- for the conventional heads of claim and funeral expenses and loss to estate. There shall consequently be an additional award for Rs.20,000/- for the claimants. The enhanced amount shall be recovered against the appellant with interest at 6% from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of the payment. 5. The cross appeal is allowed to the above extent (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 18.08.2010 sanjeev