FAO No.3760 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3760 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 26.05.2011 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Sh. Ram Avtar, Deputy Manager, Regional Office, SCO No.109-11, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh duly constituted attorney ......Appellant Versus Baljinder Singh @ Balwinder son of Gurcharan Singh and others .....Respondents 2. FAO No.3761 of 2011 (O&M) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Sh. Ram Avtar, Deputy Manager, Regional Office, SCO No.109-11, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh duly constituted attorney ......Appellant Versus Manjit Kaur and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. Delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2. The insurance company that had the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeks to challenge the award on the issue of negligence that the Tribunal has not properly considered the case of the deceased, driver of the motor cycle, who was carrying three other persons as pillion riders and the accident had been the result of such a negligent act on his part in carrying more persons than what the vehicle could hold. The Tribunal has held that the accident was the result of FAO No.3760 of 2011 (O&M) -2- negligent act on the part of the driver of insured vehicle and I will not, therefore, find the act of the deceased in carrying three more persons on a motor cycle as responsible for the accident. The finding regarding negligence has been properly adverted to by the Tribunal and I find no reason to interfere with the same. 3. In FAO No.3760 of 2011, the contention is that the compensation is also on the higher side, having regard to the fact that the deceased was said to be aged 21 years and the claimants were the parents. The Tribunal has taken a modest estimation of Rs.2,000/- as contribution to the family and assessed the compensation at Rs.2,93,000/- that includes the conventional heads of claim also. I do not find the compensation for death of a person at the above amount is in any way excessive. 4. I confirm the award in FAO No.3760 of 2011 and dismiss the appeal. 5. As regards FAO No.3761 of 2011, the mother was the only claimant and the contention of the insurance company is that the Tribunal had assessed a relatively higher amount of compensation having regard to the fact that the age of the claimant is more than the claimant in another case and the Tribunal adopted a wrong multiplier. An amount of Rs.3,17,000/- for death of a boy who was aged 22 years, again is not to be seen as high or excessive. 6. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 26, 2011 Pankaj*