IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1911 of 2000 Date of decision:24.08.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Bimla Devi and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.3084 of 2001 Vishal Singh and others ....Appellants versus Babu Ram and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No.1911 of 2000 and for respondent No.4 in FAO No.3084 of 2001. Mr. Kulwant Singh Dhanora, Advocate, for the appellants in FAO No.3084 of 2001 and for respondents 1 to 6 in FAO No.1911 of 2000. ---- 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 in appeal against the liability and the claimants have also filed their own appeal seeking for enhancement. 2. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of FAO No.1911 of 2000 - 2 - the Insurance Company is that the FIR lodged initially after the accident that took place on 28.06.1998 did not contain reference to the vehicle number although alleged eye-witness, who had given the FIR improved his version at the time of trial and gave details of the name of the driver as well as the registration number of the vehicle. The learned counsel points out to the admission in the cross-examination that at the time when he gave the complaint, he did not mention the number of the offending vehicle and only on 31.08.1998 i.e. about two months later when he went to the police station, the police told him about the same and that was when he also met the driver and the owner at the police station. This, according to the counsel, would point out to the collusion between the claimant and the insurer. 3. The Tribunal, in this case, has considered the fact that the FIR had been lodged immediately after the accident and in the investigation carried out by the police, they were able to track the driver, who drove the vehicle and the vehicle which was involved in the accident. The report of the police had been registered under Section 173 where the investigation is believed to have revealed that Babu Ram was the person at the steering wheel of the Swaraj Mazda bearing registration No.DL-1L-5017. The The Tribunal also considered the fact that the plea of collusion could not be inferred by a mere fact that the driver and the owner did not appear and it had also reasoned that the insurer himself had not given any positive evidence regarding collusion. I am prepared to accept the contention that there could be no possibility of a positive evidence and a collusion could be a matter of an inference from a given FAO No.1911 of 2000 - 3 - set of facts. That inference, I am afraid cannot be drawn by the only fact that the witness had met with the driver and the owner at the police station two months later. If the police had apprehended the driver and had caused a report to be filed to the Criminal Court implicating the particular vehicle and the driver it is just as well likely that in the manner of investigation, the complainant had been brought to the police station when he met with the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. It was not a case of no evidence given by the claimants. The police investigation and report bolsters up the case of the claimants that the vehicle had been involved in the accident. I affirm the finding of the Tribunal in that regard and if the involvement of the vehicle is to be established, the liability of the insurer is unexceptional. 4. In the appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation, it is brought out through the record that at the initial time when the petition was filed, it was filed at the instance of the wife, two son, one daughter and parents. The deceased was a mechanic, aged about 42 to 45 years. Before the Tribunal, the evidence was that he was earning Rs.40,000/- annually and providing for 1/3rd deduction, the Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 15 and arrived at a compensation of Rs.5,40,000/-. It added Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss to estate and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium. It has to be immediately noticed that the wife did not survive till the conclusion of the trial and she had died. The learned counsel would contend that the amount provided for funeral expenses is low and even for loss to estate only Rs.2,500/- had been awarded. I do not think that they are anywhere material for the Tribunal FAO No.1911 of 2000 - 4 - had also provided for Rs.5,000/- for the loss of consortium when the wife herself had died. In the nature of a personal grant it cannot survive to the legal heirs of the wife, if she had died even before an award was passed. It will be in the nature of personal damage for which the right will not survive as per Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act. I will still not make any deduction on that score for that will otherwise offset the relatively lesser allocation made by the Tribunal for funeral expenses and loss to estate. The choice of multiplier cannot be faulted nor can even the multiplicand be said to be arbitrarily drawn up. The quantum of compensation is perfectly justified and there is no scope for interference for enhancement. The appeal by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the appeal by the claimants for enhancement is also dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 24.08.2010 sanjeev