IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2663 of 2007 Date of decision:29.07.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Sheela Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Gopal Mittal, 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 point urged in appeal is that the claim petitions had been filed both under Section 163-A and 166 and the claimants could not have persisted with prosecution of the case without electing for relief under one of the petitions. A substantive relief under the Act cannot be denied by inartistic pleading or by failure to elect between the two sections so long as there was no confusion at the trial as to what the claimants were asking for. The Court had found, in this case, that there was negligence of the driver for that would mean that the Court was addressing the claimants' case under Section 166 for, if it was merely applying the relief under Section 163-A, there need not have been a finding relating to negligence. 2. For a person of 39 years, who was an government employee, FAO No.2663 of 2007 - 2 - drawing salary of Rs.6,796/-, the amount awarded as compensation has followed a formula for the claimants, who were widow and four minor children by taking a deduction for 1/3rd towards personal expenses and adopting a multiplier of 16 and determining an amount of Rs.8,69,952 . A choice of multiplier was as per schedule-II but it would have been only appropriate that multiplier of 14 had been taken but I still do not intend to make any modification for the Tribunal had not provided for a future increase in salary or promotional prospects, for a person, who was in Punjab Electricity Board would have had definite prospects of increase in scales if he had survived in the accident. The overall compensation of Rs.8,94,952/-, under the circumstances, is maintained and the appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 29.07.2010 sanjeev