FAO No.2604 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2604 of 1996 Date of Decision. 08.09.2010 New India Assurance Company Limited through Shri D.K. Dogra, Legal Officer its duly constituted attorney, Regional Office, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Mrs. Upkar Kaur, widow of Manohar Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.M. Suri, 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. The insurance company is on appeal on the question of quantum without taking a permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. When the Court asked the counsel as to how he could maintain it, the counsel points out to a patent error found in the judgment in referring to the age of the deceased as 36 years and adopting a multiplier of 16 when the deceased was actually aged 46 years and the relevant multiplier could not have been more than 13. The counsel for the respondents points out that if the issue could be reconsidered on a point of quantum, the Tribunal had not made provision for future increase in salary, having regard to the fact that FAO No.2604 of 1996 -2- he was a government employee. The choice of a multiplier even if it had been cast high by a wrong reference to age, it would be more than offset by the fact that if the multiplicand were to provide for a future increase in salary by raising it to another 30% then the ultimate award that is passed will approximate to what would be applicable if the appropriate multiplier were to be applied. I do not see any point in interfering with the award. 2. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 08, 2010 Pankaj*