FAO No.2268 of 2009 & -1- X-Objection No.42-CII of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2268 of 2009 & X-Objection No.42-CII of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: January 31, 2011 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...APPELLANT VERSUS PARHLAD AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes ---- PRESENT: MR. GOPAL MITTAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. MR.DHEERAJ NARULA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 to 3 - X-OBJECTORS. MR. JITENDER NARA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 4 AND 5. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal by the insurance company and the x-objections at the instance of claimants who are brothers of the deceased are on the issue of liability and claim of enhancement, respectively. 2. As regards the issue of liability, the Tribunal had found that there had been a breach of violation of terms of policy and the Tribunal had allowed for liability for the insurer and provided to it also a right of recovery against the owner. The contention by the learned counsel is that it was only an Act only policy which covered the risk for third party and a gratuitous passenger in a a private vehicle was not covered. The Pay and Recover principle could be properly applied only in cases where the claim is FAO No.2268 of 2009 & -2- X-Objection No.42-CII of 2010 possible and an insurance cover is available but for the fact that there was a violation of terms of policy. In this case, there was no violation that could be complained of. On the other hand, it was a simple case of insurance cover not being available to a gratuitous passenger in a private vehicle in the absence of specific terms of policy. The liability for the insurance company could not have been, therefore, fastened at all. This has become purely an academic issue, for, it is contended on behalf of the claimants that the amount was deposited and has also been withdrawn. If the amount has been withdrawn, the entitlement of the insurance company shall be to recover the same only from the insured and not from the claimants. X-Objection No.42-CII of 2010 3. As regards the claim for enhancement made at the instance of the claimants, they are brothers and the deceased was himself 27 years of age. The Tribunal took the income at `2200/-, provided for a 50% deduction and adopted a multiplier of 17. Learned counsel would contend that even the minimum wages applicable would be `3500/- and the assessment at `2200/- was grossly low. If such a contention were to be accepted, the choice of multiplier of 17 was high for a case where the claimants were themselves brothers and their extent of dependence could not have lasted for lifetime. An appropriate multiplier would have been only, in my view, 10 and the over all compensation assessed at `2,25,000/- was under circumstances just which would deserve no intervention. 4. The x-objections, therefore, stand dismissed. January 31, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE FAO No.2268 of 2009 & -3- X-Objection No.42-CII of 2010