IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1891 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision:10.12.2010 Amarjit Kaur and others ....Appellants versus Shri Gurmukh Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Ms. Harveen Kaur, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. ---- 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 appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of a person, who was working in a Cooperative Bank. The claimants were the wife, sons and daughter, one of the sons was already married, the daughter was unmarried and another son, although a major, was still studying. His income was Rs.2,345/- and if we see that there were three dependents, a provision for 1/3rd deduction for personal consumption and to provide for the remaining as contribution to the family would have been just. The Tribunal has taken the contribution to the family at Rs.1,600/- and adopted a multiplier of 10. The learned counsel would plead for increase of the multiplier as 11 in the manner laid down under FAO No.1891 of 1996 (O&M) - 2 - Schedule-II and in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another- 2009 ACJ 1298, I will retain, therefore, the extent of dependence to the family at Rs.1,600/- and adopt a multiplier of 11 that would yield to Rs.2,11,200/- as the loss due to dependency. The Tribunal has not provided for loss of consortium which I will provide at Rs.5,000/- for the wife, and add another Rs.5,000/- for loss to estate and provide also for funeral expenses at Rs.2,500/-. The total amount that will become payable would be Rs.2,23,700/-. 2. The learned counsel would submit that the Insurance Company had been exonerated on the amount that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. While I will retain the finding that the driver did not have a driving licence. I will provide for the right of enforcement of the claim against the insurer in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Versus Kamla-(2001) 4 SCC 342 and in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 279. The Insurance Company shall, however, have a right of recovery against the owner/insured after satisfying the award, if he has not already satisfied the award. However, if the claimants have already recovered any portion of the award from the insurer/insured, the same will be duly credited and only the balance of amount shall be recoverable against the insurer which in turn will again be recovered by the insurer from the insured. 3. A further modification which the learned counsel would urge is that the award does not make reference to when the interest FAO No.1891 of 1996 (O&M) - 3 - becomes payable. I would understand the award of interest made by the Tribunal to operate from the date of the petition till the payment of amount as originally determined by the Tribunal. Any amount in excess of what has been determined by the Tribunal and which has been ordered through this judgment will attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 4. The award of the Tribunal stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.12.2010 sanjeev