FAO No.1641 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1641 of 2008 Date of Decision.14.07.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, Fatehabad having its Regional Office in SCO No.123-24, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its duly attorney .........Appellant Versus Smt. Shanti Devi wd/o Surja Ram and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the respondents. 2. FAO No.1947 of 2008 Smt. Shanti Devi wd/o Surja Ram and others .........Appellants Versus Smt. Kolpati Devi widow of Maan Singh son of Mohar Singh and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate 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. Both the cases arise out of the same accident. The appeal in FAO No.1641 of 2008 by the insurance company pleads exclusion of liability on the ground that the vehicle was a private car but used a taxi. The insurance cover provided for use of a vehicle as a private FAO No.1641 of 2008 -2- car and even the FIR showed that the passengers had taken the vehicle on hire. Though the accident was a collision between the vehicle and the truck, the truck has not been made a party and the claim had been made only against the owner and the insurer of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling. There had been breach of term of the policy by the owner using it for a purpose, for which it was not authorized. It is one of the permissible defences under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the owner shall not be entitled to an indemnity. The liability to make the payment, however, shall subsist to the claimants. 2. The award of the Tribunal is, therefore, modified to provide for a payment by the insurance company with right of recovery from the insured. 3. There is also an appeal by the claimant in FAO No.1947 of 2008 for enhancement of compensation. The deceased though stated to be 59 years old, the post-mortem certificate showed that he was 65 years of age and when no other evidence produced, the Tribunal took the age of the deceased to be 65 years. It was contended that he was an agriculturist and he was earning income by selling milk. The Court again took note of the fact that there was no other evidence given and took the income to be Rs.2,000/- per month. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants contends that even a daily wager would earn more and the income assessed was grossly low. It cannot be discarded that for the deceased who was 65 years of age, the Tribunal had taken the income to be Rs.2000/- per month and it was fair enough. The contention of the learned FAO No.1641 of 2008 -3- counsel is that there were four dependents viz., two sons, one daughter and a widow. The Tribunal had provided for 1/3rd sum for his expenses. He pleads that it could have been 1/4th. I accept the contention. The contribution as regards the extent of dependence of the family must have been assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum instead of Rs.16,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal. So reckoned, an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- would become possible. The Tribunal has provided for loss of consortium and funeral expenses. I would make an addition of Rs.2,500/- towards loss to estate. The claimants would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.12,500/-. This additional amount will bear interest @7.5% from the date of 25.03.2008, the date of decision of the Tribunal till the date of payment. 4. In the light of the above, the appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed to the extent of providing for a right of recovery against the insured and the appeal filed by the claimants shall stand allowed partially providing for enhancement of compensation in the manner referred to above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 14, 2010 Pankaj*