FAO No.3478 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3478 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:09.05.2011 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, SCO No.24-25, Ist Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager .......Appellant Versus Smt. Balwanti Devi wife of late Shri Mahabir Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is by the insurance company on the issue of quantum, the insurance company having had the benefit of defence on all grounds under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. On the issue of quantum before the Tribunal, evidence had been secured through the Milk Procurement officer to show that he used to supply milk and for mere transportation of milk, they had paid an amount of Rs.11,000/- and document was also marked as PW4/A. The Tribunal, however, rejected the documentary evidence on the ground that it did not bear any seal of the competent officer. It was, however, in evidence that he used to supply about 1 ½ quintals of milk every day. In that manner, the income was said to be not less than Rs.4,000/- by FAO No.3478 of 2011(O&M) -2- the sale of milk. Copies of jamabandies had also been filed Ex.P12 to P14 to show that he had 9-10 acres of land. Form 16-A for the assessment year 2006-2007 had been filed to show that Rs.1,56,603/- had been paid to the deceased but the Tribunal still rejected it because it was unable to find out whether it represented the income of the deceased or payment of the whole milk in which the margin of the deceased was only 6%. However, the Tribunal on the basis of evidence that he was supplying milk and he was also the owner of 9-10 acres of land, assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- and proceeded to determine a compensation of Rs.13,10,000/- 4. I will not find the assessment to be off the mark. I confirm the same and dismiss the appeal. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 09, 2011 Pankaj*