FAO No. 392 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 392 of 1987 Date of decision January 14 , 2011 New India Assurance Company Ltd. ....... Appellant Versus Harminder Sahib Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. ,and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. L. M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. None for respondent Nos. 1,2,4,6 and 7. **** 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. The only point urged in the appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company is that the claimant was the representative of the deceased who was a passenger in the insured's bus. The accident was on account of collision between the bus and the truck where the injured person was assessed to be entitled to `88,000/- as compensation payable. The Tribunal had apportioned the liability at 50:50 between the driver and the owner respectively of the bus and the truck. 2. While adverting to the issue of liability for the amount apportioned to the owner and insurer of the bus it is contended that FAO No. 392 of 1987 2 the terms of policy spell out the limit of liability under Section II-1 (i) in respect of any one accident was such amount as was necessary under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The liability for an insurer as provided under Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) sets as follows: “In respect of passengers, a limit of `15,000/- for each individual passenger. “ 3. This was the `15,000/- limit which was actually an increased limit that was brought through Act 1982 that was in effect in 1982. The accident had taken place on 10.12.1984. The limit of liability of the Insurance Company was therefore only `15,000/- and the amount in excess shall be recovered against the owner/insured of the bus involved in the accident in which the claimant was travelling. The appeal filed by the insurer is allowed with such restriction referred to above. 4. There is a cross appeal for enchancement. There is no representation for the claimant. Since the case relates to the year 1987 I do not propose to adjourn the case or dismiss the appeal for default. The evidence was with regard to the injury given through the doctor Shrikant of PGI. He said that he had treated him for a day but subsequently the patient had suffered an amputation of right limb above middle of upper arm. The amputation stump was 7” from the tip of right acromion process. The doctor had assessed the disability at 80% which I assume to also result in 80% for loss of earning capacity. She was a house wife and I would assume services of a householder and the value of her own activity as a tailor at Rs.1,000/- applying a multiplier of 10, the loss of earning capacity is determined at `96,000/-. I would retain the amounts assessed towards medical expenses at `5,000/- and increase towards pain and suffering the amount to `15,000/- from `5,000/- and retain and Rs.15,000/- awarded as special damages on going towards loss of amenities. The Tribunal had awarded 12% interest from the date of FAO No. 392 of 1987 3 petition till the date of disposal of the petition as `18,200/- which also I will retain. The total compensation shall be `1,31,000/- exclusive of `18,200/- awarded as past interest. The total amount in excess of `70,000/- of what is determined as compensation payable will attract interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The rate of interest at 6% shall be on `61,000/- (`1,31,000/- - `70,000/-) and the interest component `18,2000/- for `70,000/- shall also be retained. 5. In terms of the restriction of liability of the insurer of the bus at `15,000/-, the balance of amount shall be recoverable against the owner of the bus to the balance that makes up to 50% and the other 50% shall be recoverable against the owner and insurer of the truck. The cross appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 14, 2011 archana