IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2531 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:29.03.2011 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Kamlesh @ Kamlesh Rani and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Ms. Vandanaa Malhotra, Advocate, for the appellant. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal by the Insurance Company is on the issue of non-involvement of the vehicle, negligence and quantum. It was a case where the insured/owner took a defence of non-involvement of the vehicle and he happened to be near the place of accident when the motorcyclist tumbled and fell down by his own conduct into a ditch and died. It was too unrealistic to believe that a man tumbled out of the motorcycle and fell into a ditch with no involvement of the vehicle when admittedly the owner of the car had paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the representatives of the appellant after the accident. This was done through a compromise at the police station and the owner stated that he felt pressurized to accept liability and his only folly was that he happened to be near the place of accident. This contention was rejected FAO No.2531 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - by the Tribunal and it found the involvement as established by the fact that the owner had made the payment to the claimant. I cannot accept a contention that a person would volunteer to make a payment of over Rs.1 lakh even when his vehicle was not involved. 2. As regards the quantum of compensation determined, the evidence was that he was having his own shop under the name and style of Ravi Welding Works. He had a monthly income of over Rs.18,000/-. The landlord, who had let his premises to the deceased, was also examined and he said that he would pay Rs.1,500/- as rent. In a case where a person was paying a rent of Rs.1,500/- per month, I would presume that a person could pay comfortably upto 10 to 15% of his income as rent and if he was paying Rs.1,500/- per month as rent, his earning must have been definitely over Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal took the income at Rs.6,000/- and assessed the compensation in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(6) SCC 121 . The Tribunal also made a deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- admittedly paid by the first respondent and awarded a compensation for Rs.6,70,000/- to the claimants. I do not find any error in the reasoning as regards the negligence aspect and find also the assessment of compensation as reasonable and just. I confirm the award and dismiss the appeal. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 29.03.2011 sanjeev