FAO No.680 of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.680 of 2002
Date of decision 23.12.2008
Smt. Krishna Devi and others .....Appellants
versus
Nirbhai Singh and others .....Respondents
Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan.
Present: Mr. O. P. Sharda, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr.R. C. Gupta, Advocate,
for Insurance Company.
K. Kannan, J.
1. The appellants seek for enhancement of compensation arising
out of the death of one Prem Chand on 31.3.1998, who had been employed
as Desk Operator at Government of India, FCI. The net salary drawn after
all compulsory deductions had been shown to be Rs.5,576/-.
2. The Tribunal found that the accident had been rendered by the
rash and negligent driving of the driver and found the respondents jointly
and severely liable. On the question of quantum the Tribunal found that
after providing for deduction of 1/3rd for personal consumption, the
contribution to the family was taken as Rs.3,717/- and arrived at an amount
of Rs.4,90,644/- by adopting a multiplier of 11 as most suitable and
reasonable one.
3. Before me, it is contended that the Tribunal did not make
adequate provision for the increase in salary and the promotion prospects of
the deceased person, he being an employee of Public Sector Undertaking.
The contention also was that the choice of multiplier was low for the person
FAO No.680 of 2002 -2-
who has aged 48 years when the appropriate multiplier could have been 15.
The interest claim was 12 % but the Tribunal had awarded only interest at
the rate of 9 % . The Tribunal had also not awarded any amount towards
funeral expenses or loss to estate or towards loss of consortium. According
to the appellants the income should have been taken at least Rs.10,000/- per
month and the extent of dependence must have been reckoned on such an
estimation. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company refers to the
judgment of Supreme Court in New India Insurance Company Limited
versus Kalpana and others reported in 2007 ACJ 825, where the Supreme
Court had awarded a compensation of Rs.4,68,000/-, in the case of a
deceased who was aged 33 years, a taxi driver, engaged also in agriculture
and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. The Supreme Court had assessed the
dependency at Rs.3,000/- per month and adopting a multiplier had reduced
the award made by the High Court from 8,16,000/- to 4,68,000/-.
4. It cannot be denied that a person who is working on a technical
post in a Government of India undertaking would have earned increments
and also obtained promotion. It is only expected that in life that a
successful bread-winner in the family tries to do everything to improve the
quality of life and maximise his earnings to the benefit of himself and for
other members of the family. Courts have always considered promotional
prospects as relevant for increasing the income factor while determining
compensation. Of course it has always to be seen that there are greater
uncertainty of life and we cannot arrive at the quantum by merely making
unrealistic projections that the deceased if he had survived would have
brought home larger amount over a period of time. It was held in Sarla
Dixit versus Balwant Yadav AIR 1996 SC 1274, that Courts would be
FAO No.680 of 2002 -3-
competent to provide for increased contribution to the family taking into
account the promotional prospects. In this case there is no evidence about
the tiers of promotion that would have been available to the deceased or
how his scales of pay could have been increased and to what extent. Even
in the absence of definite evidence it will be impossible to yield to
conjectures but it will not be unrealistic to assume that instead of Rs.3,717/-
taken by the Tribunal as extent of dependence per month on his net salary of
Rs.5,975/-, I would assume that the income could have been taken even as
high as 1 ½ times of what he was earning at the time of his death. But I
assume even a lesser sum, viz at least Rs.7,500/- and taking the family of
himself, his wife and three minor childern at the time of his death the total
number of units would have been 2 units each for the wife and the deceased
and one unit each for the minor childern. The contribution to the family
would be 5/7th of his net income. Consequently the monthly contribution of
the family must have been taken as Rs.5,357/- and for 12 months, the annual
dependency would have been Rs.64,285/-. The Trial Court has taken 11 as
per the appropriate multiplier. Schedule II to the Motor Vehicles Act
provides for 13 as a person between the age i.e. 45 years to 50 years.
Having regard to the fact that have been providing for promotion prospects I
take the multiplier an appropriate multiplier 11 instead of 13 as provided in
the Schedule II. So considered the total extent of dependency in the family
would be Rs.7,07,135/-. I provide for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral
expenses and also award an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of
estate, loss of consortium to the wife and loss of love and affection of the 3
minor childern, I estimate at Rs.25,000/-. In sum, the total amount payable
as compensation would be Rs.7,47,135/-. The Court below is awarded
FAO No.680 of 2002 -4-
Rs.4,90,644/- and excess over the said amount viz Rs.2,56,491/- rounded
off to Rs.2,56,500/- shall be additional amount payable by the Insurance
Company in favour of the petitioners with interest at the rate of 7.5 % from
the date of petition till the date of payment.
5. The appeal is allowed in the above terms, however, no
directions as to costs.
( K. KANNAN )
23.12.2008 JUDGE
A. KAUNDAL