FAO No.1350 of 1989 & -1- X-Objection No.14-CII of 1990 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1350 of 1989 & X-Objection No.14-CII of 1990 DATE OF DECISION: January 6, 2011 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. ...APPELLANT VERSUS SMT. KANTA DEVI & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. GOPAL MITTAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. MR. SHUBJOT SINGH CHADHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is by the insurance company challenging the liability cast on it in a case where the insurance company had proved by the examination of witness from the licencing authority that a copy of the licence produced before the Court was not genuine and that licence was not valid. The Tribunal held that even if the licence was not valid, the insurance company shall have to still take responsibility for the same. The law is fairly well settled now through the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others, reported as 2004 3 SCC 297, that the liability of the insurer shall be only to satisfy the claim of the claimants and will have a right of recovery against the owner and the driver. I will, therefore, hold that a liability that can be cast FAO No.1350 of 1989 & -2- X-Objection No.14-CII of 1990 through the award shall be with the right granted to the insurance company to recover the same against the owner-insured. I would accord the same right and allow the appeal of the insurance company to the above extent. 2. There are cross-objections filed at the instance of the claimants for enhancement of compensation. The deceased was an income tax assessee and the Income tax return filed in the year 1986-87 before his death showed that he had income of `28,048/- and he had also income of `3000/- from agricultural operations. The document shows that he paid tax of `490/-. The Tribunal had only taken `20,000/- as income per year. I would take the income as established through the document, namely, the gross income minus tax as `30,558/- and provide for deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses and take the remaining, namely, `20,372/- as contribution to the family per year. I would adopt a multiplier of 10 and hold the loss of dependency at `2,03,720/-. I will also add `5000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife and `5000/- towards loss of estate and `2500/- as funeral expenses and hold the amount payable to the claimants as `2,16,220/-. The Tribunal has already awarded `1,33,000/- and the amount in excess over what has been determined by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 3. The entitlement of the claimants in the manner of apportionment and the liability shall be in the manner as determined by the Tribunal, but subject to modification made in the appeal as mentioned above. The X-objections are disposed of in the above terms. January 6, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE