F.A.O.NO. 3974 OF 2002 and F.A.O.NO.5591 of 2002(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 3974 OF 2002 Date of decision:6th September, 2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Regional Office, SCO No. 109-110-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh .......Appellant Versus Smt. Sharda and another ........Respondents F.A.O.NO.5591 of 2002(O&M) Smt. Sharda wife of Shir Niwas alias Raj Kumar, mother of Vijay Kumar deceased, resident of Village Bhainsa Tibba, Mata Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula .....Appellant Versus Sh. Shri Niwas alias Raj Kumar and another ......Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Sukhwinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate, for the respondents. 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. Both the cases arise out the same accident. The Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the claimant was the mother and the owner of the F.A.O.NO. 3974 OF 2002 and F.A.O.NO.5591 of 2002(O&M) 2 vehicle was her own husband. There is nothing unusual or wrong legally about the claimant making a claim against her own husband and the insurer so long as the basis in law exists. Such basis is the death arising out of the use of motor vehicle and under the terms of the policy the risk to the driver is covered and premium has also been paid to cover this risk. I therefore, find that the liability is secured under the terms of the policy for the mother to make a claim for the death of her son. 2. The petition had been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the scale of compensation as provided under Schedule II is unexceptional. The Tribunal took the income of the boy aged 20 years who was said to have been doing work in photography to be Rs.2,500/-. The Tribunal split the span of life of the deceased as falling under two different stages one upto the age of 24 when he would have remained a bachelor and provided for 2/3rd as the contribution towards the family and took the life span beyond 25 years as for a married person when the contribution towards the family would have reduced. We cannot import our own formulas for determining compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. It shall be a uniform application of multiplier depending on the age and income. If the income was taken as Rs. 2,500/- then 1/3rd shall be taken as a deduction for the personal expenses and the remaining 2/3rd must have been taken towards contribution to the family. For the age age upto 20 years the appropriate multiplier could have been 16. So reckoned the amount that F.A.O.NO. 3974 OF 2002 and F.A.O.NO.5591 of 2002(O&M) 3 shall become payable would be Rs. 3,21,600/-. I would add the conventional heads of claim Rs. 9,500/- towards loss to estate and funeral expenses as well as loss of love and affection for the son. I will provide for an aggregate of Rs. 3,31,100/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 1,68,000/-. The sum in excess shall bear interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 3. The appeal by the claimant i.e. F.A.O.No. 5591 of 2002 is allowed to the above extent and F.A.O.No. 3974 of 2002 is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 6th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik