K. Kannan, J. - (1.) BOTH the appeals are connected and they arise out of the same accident of death of a male said to be aged 21 years of age in the accident that took place on 10.7.1991. The claimants were widow, 2 minor children and parents. He was said to be working in a private company and his employer was examined who spoke that he used to be paying Rs. 1500/ - as a helper to him in his factory and that he would also pay over time wages and his income was Rs. 2100 -2200/ - per month. The tribunal considering the fact that he was a helper who could have earned a promotion as a machine man and an abled bodied man must have earned at least Rs. 1300/ - as minimum wages and proceeded to determine the compensation working out the dependency to be not less than Rs. 8,000/ - to Rs. 10,000/ -. I will take the income at Rs. 1500/ - and make a prospect of modest increase and take the annual dependency at Rs. 22500/ -. Though his age was said to be 21 years he had two children and I would believe that his age was not correctly assessed and I take it about 25 years and assess the compensation and tabulate the various heads of compensation as under: -
(2.) THE tribunal has applied a multiplier of 20 which is not correct and I will take the multiplier of 17 instead of 20. I will also make a provision for loss of consortium on increased scales as provided now in some of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court. The aggregate amount shall be Rs. 5,87,500/ - and the amount shall be distributed in such a way that widow and children get twice as much as of the parents. As regards the liability the contention of the insurer was that the original policy had been issued on 26.6.1991 but after collecting the cheque for Rs. 7255/ - as premium, the cheque had bounced and on advice from the Banker the Insurance Company had issued a notice on 9.7.1991 to the owner cancelling the policy. The accident had taken place on 10.7.1991. It appears that the owner had taken a fresh policy after paying full premium which commenced from 26.7.1991. The fact that the owner had taken a fresh policy amounted to admission that the cheque that he had given could not be encashed on account of insufficiency of amount and no liability could be fastened on the insurer under a policy without payment of premium in terms of Section 64 IV of the Insurance Act. Since the cancellation of policy itself had not been brought before the accident, the third party claimant shall not be put to any hardship on account of premium not having been actually realized pursuant to the cheque issued by the owner. I will therefore make possible the right of enforcement of the claimant as available against the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company will secure recoveries after shouldering the liability from the owner for the fact that the premium had not been secured on the date when the accident had taken place. The tribunal was in error in merely stating that the right of the insurer was to collect the premium which is contrary to the statutory provision under the Insurance Act referred to above.
(3.) THE appeal FAO No. 1712 of 1996 for the claimant is allowed with modification as referred to above and FAO No. 551 of 1996 by the Insurance Company is allowed to the extent of providing for recoveries against the owner of the vehicle after undertaking the liability for the amount as determined through this judgment.;