IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.358 of 1990 Date of decision:23.08.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Inderjit Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Ms. Rimplejeet Kaur, Advocate, for Mr. O.P.Goyal, Senior Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 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 the question of liability on quantum for the death arising out of use of a motor vehicle, where a person of 35 years died and the Tribunal finding the insurer's vehicle to be responsible for the accident determined the compensation, taking the evidence on record that the deceased, who was a head constable, was drawing salary of Rs.1,477/-. The Tribunal took the contribution to the family at Rs.1,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 20 and gave a compensation of Rs.2,40,000/-. The argument of the learned counsel is that the liability was restricted to Rs.1,50,000/- and the award passed against the Insurance Company for the entire amount was not tenable. It FAO No.358 of 1990 - 2 - is further contended that the choice of multiplier at 20 was excessive and the compensation awarded at Rs.2,40,000/- was therefore against the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another- 2009 ACJ 1298. 2. As regards the liability pleading for its restriction, it must be founded on the terms of the policy. No document is produced before me to show that the policy terms restricted the liability of the insurer only to Rs.1,50,000/-. It cannot be a matter of inference by a mere reference to the fact that the 1939 Act was applicable. A policy of insurance is founded on contractual obligation and if any restriction of liability is pleaded, it must be specifically established by the insurer. The same having not been done, the compensation determined in excess of Rs.1,50,000/- and making the insurer liable cannot be faulted. 3. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that the choice of multiplier was erroneous, it was pointed out that the death was of a police constable, aged 35 years, who had security of tenure of office, the Tribunal had not even provided for the increase in salary that he would have earned over the period of years. It had adopted a modest at a sum of Rs.1,000/- as contribution to the family. If future increases were to be taken by adding 50% and a multiplier of 16 had been provided, the total amount of compensation that would become payable will also be in excess of amount which is already determined by the Tribunal. I do not wish to make any alteration as regards compensation especially when the claimants have not been come on FAO No.358 of 1990 - 3 - appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation. I retain the award passed by the Tribunal and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 23.08.2010 sanjeev