Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1891 (PNJ)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. DALIP KAUR

2012-12-21

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2012
JUDGMENT : RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. All these appeals and cross objections have arisen out of one common award dated 14.3.1988 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala whereby 70 claim applications claiming various amounts of compensation were filed by the legal heirs of the deceased who had died in accident on 15.6.1987 caused due to the negligence of the driver of Bus No. PUC-5282. All these appeals and cross objections being based on same facts and similar grounds are disposed of by one common judgment. 2. As per the facts which emerge from the impugned award, on 15.6.1987 Bus No.PUC 5282, which was registered in the name of M/s Sharma Transport Company Registered, Patiala, was carrying a large number of passengers and was proceeding from Samana to Patiala. When the bus, which was full of passengers, reached over the Bhakra Canal Bridge, the driver lost control over the bus and it fell in the Bhakra Canal. All the passengers died while one Harbans Singh received injuries. The bus in question was insured in the name of M/s Sharma Transport Company, the registered owner, for the period 3.2.1987 to 2.2.1988 vide Policy No.4577217735 (Ex.P-13). As many as 70 claim applications were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala by the legal heirs of the deceased passengers claiming various amounts of compensation. The respondents/claimants impleaded M/s Sharma Transport Company, the registered owner, as well as M/s Jit Transport Company alleged transferee of the bus in question and the appellant-Insurance Company as the insurer. 3. The claim applications were contested by the alleged transferee, owner as well as the Insurance Company. 4. It was pleaded by M/s Sharma Transport Company that they had sold the bus to M/s Jit Transport Company before the date of the accident and had delivered the possession of the bus along with route permit on 12.1.1987, for a consideration of Rs. 3,32,000/- and out of which Rs. 50,000/- was paid as earnest money and further Rs. 1,00,000/- was to be paid on 3.3.1987, it also gave an affidavit to M/s Jit Transport Company to get the vehicle transferred in their name and hence they had no liability to pay the compensation. It was further pleaded that the bus was being driven by the driver of Jit Transport Company and thus, they had no vicarious liability at all. 5. It was further pleaded that the bus was being driven by the driver of Jit Transport Company and thus, they had no vicarious liability at all. 5. M/s Jit Transport Company, on the contrary, contested stating that it has nothing to do with the bus in question and that one of its partners Sarabjit Singh was attorney of M/s Sharma Transport Company which fully owned and possessed the bus in question. 6. The appellant-Insurance Company in its reply in each petition admitted the fact of ill fated bus being covered by the policy of Insurance issued by it, but sought to avoid the liability on the identical plea that the policy ceased to operate because of the sale of the bus by M/s Sharma Transport Company in whose name it was insured before the accident, to M/s Jit Transport Company. The policy of insurance therefore became ineffective and inoperative because of the sale before the accident, adding that in any event its liability was limited to Rs. 15,000/- per passenger and that compensation could be paid only in respect of the deaths of 52 passengers which was the registered capacity of the bus as mentioned in the policy of insurance. 7. On the above pleadings, the parties went to trial. The relevant issues read thus: "1. Whether the accident in question loading to the fall of passenger bus bearing registration No.LUC-5282 into Bhakra Canal at Pasiana bridge on Patiala Sangrur road, was due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of that bus? OPP. 2. Whether the bus bearing registration No.PUC 5282 was validly transferred by respondent M/s Sharma Transport Company to M/s Jit Transport Company on 12.1.1987, if so, to what effect? OPP. 3. If issue No.3 is proved, whether the insurer, namely New India Assurance Company is liable under the policy of insurance? 8. Large number of witnesses were examined by the claimants The owner of the bus also produced evidence. PW-6 L.K.Khanna Branch Manager of the appellant-Company, was also examined. The respondents further produced the certified copy of the order of the State Transport Commissioner transferring the permit to Jit Transport Company, the agreement to sell Ex.R-2 and various other documents. 8. Large number of witnesses were examined by the claimants The owner of the bus also produced evidence. PW-6 L.K.Khanna Branch Manager of the appellant-Company, was also examined. The respondents further produced the certified copy of the order of the State Transport Commissioner transferring the permit to Jit Transport Company, the agreement to sell Ex.R-2 and various other documents. The Policy of Insurance was produced as Ex.R-13 wherein it was mentioned that the liability of the company was such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act and was issued to M/s Sharma Transport Company Registered. 9. The Tribunal vide impugned award held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal further calculated the various amounts of compensation payable to the claimants. Under issue No.3, on the basis of the evidence on record, a finding was recorded by the Tribunal that M/s Sharma Transport Company registered owner of the bus had transferred its route permit to M/s Jit Transport Company on 12.1.1987 and a joint application Ex.R-5 was submitted to the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala for the transfer of the route permit in the name of M/s Jit Transport Company which was further accompanied by an affidavit of Sh.Ashok Kumar partner of M/s Sharma Transport Company and the said application was accepted by the Transport Commissioner vide Ex.R1 on 3.3.1987. Further, the Tribunal held that M/s Jit Transport Company, which was the owner of the bus on the date of accident in question, was in absolute possession and control and as such was liable to discharge its obligation and liabilities arising under the Act. 10. Under issue No.4, the Tribunal held that the appellant could not avoid their liability. As regards the limits of liability, the Tribunal held that the liability of the Insurance company is unlimited. The award of the Tribunal has been challenged by the appellant Insurance Company on the following grounds: "1. That admittedly no award has been passed against the insured of the appellant M/s Sharma Transport Company Registered. According to him, the insurer can only be liable if a pre-condition is satisfied i.e under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act judgment is first obtained against the insured person. In the absence of a judgment against the insured person, no liability whatsoever will arise against the insurers. According to him, the insurer can only be liable if a pre-condition is satisfied i.e under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act judgment is first obtained against the insured person. In the absence of a judgment against the insured person, no liability whatsoever will arise against the insurers. (2) That admittedly the bus was insured to carry 52 passengers. The liability of the Insurance Company was also only limited to indemnify the insured upto the extent of 52 passengers. The Tribunal has, therefore, erred in law in holding the appellant liable to pay compensation in as much as 67 cases. At the most compensation prorata to be paid which was payable to 52 passengers. (3) That the Tribunal has wrongly interpreted the Policy of Insurance. According to the counsel, it is clearly mentioned in the said Policy that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited "to such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is the further argument that the expression has been interpreted to mean that amount as is mentioned in Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of passengers is limited to Rs. 15,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in holding that the liability of the Insurance Company is unlimited." 12. In support of his case, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in FAO No.410 of 1988 (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Chameli Devi and others) decided on 7.5.2010 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam & ors. JT 2007 (10) SC 209. In the end, counsel for the appellant has argued that unless M/s Sharma Transport Company is made liable for the compensation, Insurance Company appellant cannot be burdened with any liability on the basis of the policy of Insurance as the same is between the appellant and M/s Sharma Transport Company and there is no privity of contract between the appellant and M/s Jit Transport Company in the absence of any contract of indemnity between the two he appellants are not liable to pay any compensation. 13. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-M/s Sharma Transport Company has vehemently argued that a finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that M/s Jit Transport Company was owner of the bus on the day the accident in question took place and was in its absolute possession and control since 12.1.1987 and as such, was liable to discharge its obligation and liabilities arising under the Act and the rules made therein from its use and therefore, no liability can be imposed upon M/s Sharma Transport Company. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the M/s Sharma Transport Company has further referred to the factum of transfer of the route permit from the name of M/s Sharma Transport Company to the name of M/s Jit Transport Company to support his plea that the bus in question stood sold to M/s Jit Transport Company. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants have supported the findings of the Tribunal and have prayed for dismissal of the appeals filed on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company. 15. Mr. G.S. Punia, Advocate appearing on behalf of the cross-objectors in FAO No.766 of 1988 has prayed for enhancement of compensation on the ground that suitable multiplier was not applied and moreover, while determining compensation, future prospects of the job of the deceased have not been taken into consideration. Counsel for the claimants has relied upon a judgment cited as Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 2012 ACJ 1428 . 16. No arguments have been advanced on behalf of the appellants in FAO No.1231 of 1988 and FAO No.1080 of 1988. 17. At the outset, it may be noticed that there is no dispute with regard to the findings of the Tribunal on issue No.1 wherein it has been held that the accident in question was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the bus No. PUC 5282. It is again not in dispute that the registered owner of the said bus on the date of accident was M/s Sharma Transport Company. Again it is an admitted fact that the said bus was got insured in the name of M/s Sharma Transport Company in respect of 52 passengers which was the registered capacity of the bus. There is further no dispute with regard to the fact that on the date of accident, the policy of Insurance was in operation. 18. Again it is an admitted fact that the said bus was got insured in the name of M/s Sharma Transport Company in respect of 52 passengers which was the registered capacity of the bus. There is further no dispute with regard to the fact that on the date of accident, the policy of Insurance was in operation. 18. The only dispute raised in these appeals before this Court on behalf of the Insurance Company is with regard to its liability to pay compensation on the ground mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. 19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as well as the record of the case with the help of the learned counsel for the parties. 20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the impugned award is liable to be set aside as the liability of the appellant under the Policy of Insurance is limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- per passenger and that too will be confined to 52 passengers i.e. the registered capacity of the bus in question. 21. At this stage, it is useful to refer to a judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya & others (2002) 2 SCC 278 wherein after considering the provision of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it was held as under: "(5). Thus, a careful reading of these decisions clearly shows that the liability of the insurer is limited, as indicated in Section 95 of the Act, but it is open to the insured to make payment of additional higher premium and get higher risk covered in respect of third party also. But in the absence of any such clause in the insurance policy the liability of the insurer cannot be unlimited in respect of third party and it is limited only to the statutory liability. This view has been consistently taken in the other decisions of this Court." 22. In the case in hand, indisputably the compulsorily insured statutory liability is Rs. 15,000/- in each individual passenger in terms of clause (b)(ii) of sub section (2) of section 95 of the Act. This view has been consistently taken in the other decisions of this Court." 22. In the case in hand, indisputably the compulsorily insured statutory liability is Rs. 15,000/- in each individual passenger in terms of clause (b)(ii) of sub section (2) of section 95 of the Act. However, in view of the law laid down as noticed above, there is no legal bar or impediment in the way of the insurer to cover the liability of the insured in excess of the said statutory limit and the same can be unlimited. In this case, the Tribunal has recorded a finding to the effect that the Policy of Insurance would show that the appellant had undertaken to indemnify the insured against the statutory liability for compensation to passengers travelling in the vehicle in consideration of an additional premium without any limit as to such compensation. The Tribunal has further found that the column meant for prescribing upper limit for such liability has been left blank which would justify the inference that no limit was intended to "Schedule to Premium" under the heading "Liability to Public Risk" forming part of the policy. 23. At this stage, it is useful to refer to paras No.33 to 37 of the impugned award: (33) "In the circumstances, the mere fact that the name of the Insured in the policy of insurance Ex.R-13 is mentioned as M/s Sharma Transport Company is by itself of no consequence and in any case does not justify the inference that it was the true owner of the bus insured in terms of that policy. Obviously, it was because of the mistaken impression that holds the field that the policy can be only in the name of the registered owner of the vehicle, as was indeed, stated by the Branch Manager in his cross-examination on behalf of the claimants. He stated that proposed form has to be by or on behalf of the registered owner of the vehicle and that the policy can be issued only in the name of the registered owner. He stated that proposed form has to be by or on behalf of the registered owner of the vehicle and that the policy can be issued only in the name of the registered owner. In this view of the matter, the only inference that reasonably arises from the evidence discussed above is that the bus in question was got insured by its true owner, namely, M/s Jit Transport Company and the name of M/s Sharma Transport Company was mentioned as the insured just because of its being continued to be recorded as the owner of the bus in the registration certificate. In this situation, the insurer cannot avoid the liability under the policy of insurance Ex.R-13. This view finds full support from the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajit Doshi 1979 A.C.J. 433. In an identical situation, the Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation under the Act. In that case the insured had sold the vehicle prior to the date of accident, but it continued in the name of registered owner even after its sale as in this case. On the evidence it was held that the insurance policy was obtained by the real owner in the name of the registered owner and therefore, the Insurance Company could not avoid its liability simply because the name of registered owner was mentioned in the policy of insurance. (34) The next important aspect touching this issue is as regards the extent of liability of the Insurer under the said policy of insurance Ex.P- 13. The insurer took the plea that its liability is limited to Rs. 15,000/- per passenger and that too will be confined to the 52 passengers the registered capacity of the bus in question. The said plea is however, untenable being in conflict with the terms and conditions of the said policy of insurance. (35) Indisputably, the compulsorily insurable statutory liability is Rs. 15,000/- in each individual passenger in terms of clause (b)(ii) of sub section (2) of section 95 of the Act. It is however, well settled that there is no legal bar or impediment in the way of the insurer to cover the liability of the Insured in excess of the said statutory limit and conceivably it can be unlimited. Of course the Insured has to pay more premium for coverage of the enlarged risk and liability. It is however, well settled that there is no legal bar or impediment in the way of the insurer to cover the liability of the Insured in excess of the said statutory limit and conceivably it can be unlimited. Of course the Insured has to pay more premium for coverage of the enlarged risk and liability. (36) The terms and conditions of the policy of insurance when examined in the said back ground would show that the Insurance in term of I.M.T. 13 in this case had undertaken to indemnify the Insured against the liability at law for compensation to passengers travelling in the vehicle in consideration of an additional premium without any limit as to such compensation. The column meant for prescribing upper limit for such liability has been left blank which would justify the inference that no limit was intended to "SCHEDULE TO PREMIUM" under the heading "LIABILITY TO PUBLIC RISK" forming part of the policy Ex.R-13, the following entry as regards the limit of the liability for payment of additional premium occurs. "Add for Increased T.P. Limits... Rs. 1580- Section II (i) Unlimited. Section II(ii) Rs. 3 lacs. Section II 1(i) referred to in the said schedule relates to death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the Motor Vehicle. It is, therefore, apparent that the Insurer undertook to cover the liability without any limit arising from the death of passengers travelling in the vehicle insured by policy Ex.R-13 thereby. This view finds full support from the decision of Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagdish Babu 1986 A.C.J. 890, wherein alike this case the columns in policy of insurance in endorsement I.M.T. 13 meant for specifying the limits or the liability were left blank and in this contest following the decision of the Gurahim High Court in Bomanji Rustomji Ginwala v. Ibrahim Vali Master, 1982 A.C.J. 380, the contention of the Insurer about the liability being limited to the statutory requirement was negatives and it was held liable to pay the compensation arising out of the death of passengers as determined by the Tribunal. To the same effect is the ratio of the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Gurjarat in United India Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Revaben Rachhodbhai Patel 1987 A.C.J. 306. To the same effect is the ratio of the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Gurjarat in United India Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Revaben Rachhodbhai Patel 1987 A.C.J. 306. In that case, the claim petition arose from the death of a passenger travelling in Autorickshaw covered by the policy of insurance and the Insurance Company took the plea that its insurable risk at that time, but it was negatived because the terms of the policy prescribed otherwise as in this case. 37. It, therefore, follows from the above discussion that the Insurance, namely, New India Assurance Company, in this case is liable to indemnify the insured against liability arising out of the use of the bus in question without any limit therefore, the issue is decided accordingly." 24. A Full Bench of this Court in FAO No.410 of 1988 (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Chameli Devi and others) decided on 7.5.2010, has held that the onus to prove that Insurance Company has a limited liability, is upon the Insurance Company. No effort has been made on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company to challenge the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal with regard to the different clauses of the Insurance Policy Ex.R-13. 25. At this stage, it may be further noticed that an argument has been raised on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that it was liable to pay compensation only qua 52 passengers of the bus in question (i.e registered capacity) on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam & ors. JT 2007 (10) SC 209, which was rendered on the basis of the provisions of 1988 Act. The aforesaid judgment has been considered and explained by the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. JT 2007 (10) SC 209, which was rendered on the basis of the provisions of 1988 Act. The aforesaid judgment has been considered and explained by the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.M. Poonam (2011-2) The Punjab Law Reporter 477 wherein it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to meet the liability against the third party and may recover the amount paid by it in excess of its liability from the owner of the vehicle as if it is an amount decreed by the Tribunal in favour of the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company will not be required to file a separate suit in this regard in order to recover the amount paid excess of its liability from the owner of the vehicle. 26. It is also useful to refer to the Full Bench judgment of this Court dated 7.5.2010 in FAO No.410 of 1988. In the aforesaid judgment, the following question was raised: "Whether the Insurance Company can be made liable to pay the awarded amount with liberty to recover the amount in excess of the statutory liability from the insured, in the event question No. iii) is answered in favour of the Insurance Company?" 27. Answering the said question, it has been held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire amount to the claimants with liberty to claim amount over and above its statutory liability from the insured in independent proceedings on establishment of claim to such amount in accordance with law. 28. Thus, in view of the aforesaid law laid down, the argument raised on behalf of the Insurance Company is not sustainable. 29. Thus, in view of the aforesaid law laid down, the Insurance Company shall deposit with the Tribunal the total amount awarded in favour of all the awardees. However, the Insurance Company will be entitled to recover the amount paid by it in excess of its liability, if any, from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law. 30. 29. Thus, in view of the aforesaid law laid down, the Insurance Company shall deposit with the Tribunal the total amount awarded in favour of all the awardees. However, the Insurance Company will be entitled to recover the amount paid by it in excess of its liability, if any, from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law. 30. Faced with this situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has further argued that in the instant case, a finding has been recorded that on the date of accident the bus in question was owned by M/s Jit Transport Company-respondent No.8 whereas no finding of liability has been recorded against the said respondent by the Tribunal and moreover, there is no privity of contract of the appellant-Insurance Company with the aforesaid respondent and therefore, in the absence of the same, the appellant cannot satisfy the claim of the respondent claimants as M/s Sharma Transport Company (respondent No.7) in whose name Insurance Policy has been issued and to whom the appellant is liable to indemnify, no liability has been determined against the said respondent and thus, the impugned award is liable to be set aside on this ground. The argument raised is again devoid of any merit. 31. In G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1398, it has been held that a victim or the legal representatives of such victim cannot be denied the compensation by the insurer on the ground that the policy was not transferred in the name of the transferee and the mere passing of title in the vehicle to the transferee. In fact the matter stands concluded against the appellant-Company. 32. In the aforesaid judgment, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was "whether the Insurance Policy lapses and consequently the liability of the insurer ceases when the insured vehicle was transferred and no application/intimation as prescribed under Section 103A of the Act was made/given". The Hon'ble Supreme Court after relying upon a Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court cited as Madineni Kondaiah v. Yaseen Fatima AIR 1986 Andhra Pradesh 62 (FB) and the judgments in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1995 AIR SCW 4520 and New India Assurance Co. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after relying upon a Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court cited as Madineni Kondaiah v. Yaseen Fatima AIR 1986 Andhra Pradesh 62 (FB) and the judgments in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1995 AIR SCW 4520 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sheela Rani, 1998(6) SCC 599 , has held that both under the old Act and under the new Act the Legislature was anxious to protect the third party (victim) interest. What was implicit in the provisions of the old Act is now made explicit. The provisions under the new Act and the old Act are substantially the same in relation to liability in regard to third party (victim). Thus, a victim or the legal representatives of the victim cannot be denied the compensation by the insurer on the ground that the policy was not transferred in the name of the transferee. 33. Similarly, in United India Insurance Company Limited Shimla v. Tilak Singh and others, (2006-2) The Punjab Law Reporter 297, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "(13)Thus, in our view, the situation in law which arises from the failure of the transferor to notify the insurer of the fact of transfer of ownership of the insured vehicle is no different, whether under section 103-A of the 1939 Act or under section 157 of the 1988 Act in so far as the liability towards a third party is concerned. Thus, whether the old Act applies to the facts before us, or the new Act applies, as far as the deceased third party was concerned, the result would not be different. Hence, the contention of the appellant on the second issue must fail, either way, making a decision on the first contention unnecessary, for deciding the second issue." 34. Thus, even though the vehicle in question was sold to respondent-M/s Jit Transport Company and after the sale of the vehicle in question, the registered owner i.e. M/s Sharma Transport Company had no control over it, M/s Sharma Transport Company being the registered owner shall continue to be liable for meeting the statutory liability towards the third party i.e the claimants. 35. 35. In this view of the matter, the findings of the Tribunal are modified to the extent by holding that respondent No.2-M/s Sharma Transport Company being the registered owner of the vehicle in question on the date of accident is liable to pay compensation to the respondent claimants and thus, the appellant cannot denied to make the payment of the awarded compensation to the claimants being insurer of the registered owner i.e. M/s Sharma Transport Company. 36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the argument raised on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company are not sustainable and except the modification in the findings of the Tribunal as noticed in the earlier part of the judgment, these appeals being without any merit are liable to be dismissed. Cross objections 37. At this stage, it may be noticed that in FAO No.766 of 1988 arising out of MACT No.54/T/1987, the claimants have sought compensation in respect of death of one Baljit Singh whose annual dependency has been affixed at Rs. 9,000/- per month and after applying a multiplier of 16, compensation payable to the claimants has been assessed at Rs. 1,44,000/-. An argument has been raised on behalf of the claimants that in the instant case, a suitable multiplier has not been applied as keeping in view the age of the deceased at the time of his death, a multiplier of 17 should have been applied. Another argument has been raised that nothing has been awarded on account of future prospects of the income of the deceased as in all probabilities, the income would have increased after passage of time. The argument raised is not supported by any evidence. There is nothing on record to establish the employment of Baljit Singh(deceased). Moreover, there is no documentary evidence of establishing his age as 30 at the time of accident. Even as per the statement of Manjit Kaur, his widow, her husband was aged between 30 to 35 years at the time of accident and there is only a bald statement that her husband was getting Rs. 1000/- as salary. 38. In these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the determination of the income of deceased Baljit by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the cross-objections are dismissed. 39. 1000/- as salary. 38. In these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the determination of the income of deceased Baljit by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the cross-objections are dismissed. 39. Thus, the appeals filed on behalf of the Insurance Company as well as the cross-objections of the claimants and FAO Nos.1231 of 1993 and 1080 of 1988 filed on behalf of the appellant-claimants are dismissed.