F.A.O.No. 1076 of 1989 & Cross-Obj.No.2-CII of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 1076 of 1989 & Cross-Obj.No.2-CII of 1990 Date of Decision : 17.10.2008 Smt. Aruna Chawla and others ....Appellants Versus Shri Sultan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6. Mr.P.S.Rana, Advocate for respondents No.9 and 10. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal is by the claimants who have prayed for enhanced compensation. Shri R.K.Chawla, aged 30 years lost his life in the accident which took place on 17.8.1987. He was working as a Graduate Technical Apprentice in the Thermal Plant, Panipat. He was survived by his wife, two minor children and parents. At the time of his death he was drawing a salary of Rs.1,940/- per month and in addition to this Rs.100/- was being given to him as shift allowance. The Tribunal while assessing the question of F.A.O.No. 1076 of 1989 & Cross-Obj.No.2-CII of 1990 -2- compensation took the income of the deceased as Rs.1,940/- per month and deducted an amount of Rs.640/- for his personal expenses, which is roughly 1/3rd of the income. The dependency was assessed at Rs.1,300/- per month and a multiplier of 16 was applied considering the age of the deceased. The total amount of Rs.2,49,600 was worked out in this manner. Rs.5,000/- were also awarded for medical expenses which the deceased is said to have incurred as he died afte a few days of the accident. A sum of Rs.1,400/- was awarded by way of funeral expenses. Out of the total amount of compensation of Rs.2,56,000/-, which was calculated as above, a sum of Rs.56,000/- was awarded to the parents of the deceased in equal proportion of Rs.28,000/- each and the remaining amount was given to the widow and two minor children. Dissatisfied with the award, the widow of the deceased and two minor children have filed the present appeal. The parents of the deceased have filed cross-objections and have also prayed for enhanced compensation. The insurance company, which was fastened with the liability to satisfy the award, had filed separate appeals bearing FAO Nos.1004, 1006 and 1007 of 1989. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of the insurance company in these matters despite the fact that the service is complete. Accordingly, its appeals have been dismissed by virtue of separate orders. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and cross-objectors, I am of the opinion that the compensation which has F.A.O.No. 1076 of 1989 & Cross-Obj.No.2-CII of 1990 -3- been awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. It has come in evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- as shift allowance, which was not considered by the Tribunal. It ought to have been considered a part of his salary since this amount was directly attributed to his employment which is expected to carry out. In this manner the salary should have been treated as Rs.2,040/-. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was in regular employment of the Thermal Plant, Panipat, he was expected to earn his promotions and would have naturally gained in salary as he progressed in his career. The future income ought to have been taken into consideration in cases such as this. The principle to assess the compensation by taking into account the future income is to double the amount of salary which the deceased was drawing and then to have average of the two figures. In this manner, the salary of the deceased is treated as Rs.2,040, the double of this amount comes to Rs.4,080. The two figures when added up come to Rs.6,120/- and the average of these two figures comes to Rs.3,060/-. The income of the deceased is assessed accordingly. The deceased was survived by his widow, two minor children and parents and, therefore, it would be just and appropriate if the deduction of 1/4th is made to the income. The dependency, in this manner comes to Rs.2,295/-, which is rounded up to Rs.2,300/- per month or Rs.27,600/- per annum. The multiplier of 17 should have been just and appropriate given the schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is the guiding factor. In this manner, the compensation works out to F.A.O.No. 1076 of 1989 & Cross-Obj.No.2-CII of 1990 -4- Rs.4,69,200/-. An amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus, the claimants/appellants and cross-objectors are held entitled to the total amount of compensation of Rs.4,89,200/-. Out of this amount the parents of the deceased i.e. cross-objectors/respondents No.9 and 10 shall be entitled to receive Rs.1,50,000/-. Needless to say, the amount which has already been awarded and availed of shall be adjusted while computing the amount to be released to the appellants and cross-objectors. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellants and cross- objectors along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. The liability to satisfy the award shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the appeal and the cross-objections stand allowed. 17.10.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss