FAO No.2370 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2370 of 2002 Date of Decision. 29.09.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited having its Regional Office at Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Deputy Manager ..........Appellant Versus Smt. Meena wife of Shri Kishori Lal son of late Sh. Dhehru Ram and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The insurance company is on the issue of compensation and liability. The insurance company had sought for permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was dismissed. The insurance company has taken that to be a ground of appeal and urges that there had been a clear case of collusion between the owner and the claimant and the vehicle itself had not been involved in the accident. I assume that there was a case of collusion and I have permitted the counsel to argue both on the issue of involvement of vehicle as well as quantum. 2. As regards the involvement of the vehicle although the name of the driver and the vehicle number was not given, it has FAO No.2370 of 2002 -2- come out through evidence that the police had undertaken the investigation and a report was filed by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Implicating the driver of the vehicle and at the time of trial, the criminal case was still in progress. There have been eye witnesses account to the evidence as well, involving the vehicle and the Tribunal, therefore, took on an overall consideration of evidence that the vehicle had been involved in the accident. I see no reason to find fault with the reasoning of the Tribunal and I uphold the finding that the insured's vehicle had been involved in the accident. 3. As regards the quantum, evidence was that the claimant was an employee in the State Forest Department and at the time of his death, he was 46 years of age and drawing an income of Rs.10,266/-. The Tribunal provided for a deduction of 1/6th and took the contribution to the family annually at Rs.1,800/-. The learned counsel points out that deduction ought to have been at least 1/4th and the deduction made at 1/6th is erroneous. I would accept such a contention and take only the 1/4th deduction would be possible. Here it must be remembered that he was in Government service and there was a prospect of increase of emoluments over a period of time. The certitude that obtains through the judgment in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 must be carried to its logical end to apply a provision for increase in emoluments and I would, therefore, provide for 30% increase. If the same were to be done, and after making a 10% deduction towards tax and apply a multiplier of 13, the amount that would become payable would be Rs.14,05,404/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is less than FAO No.2370 of 2002 -3- the amount which would otherwise become payable if a different dispensation as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were to be applied. 4. There is no reason interfering with the award passed by the Tribunal and I uphold the same. The appeal by the insurance company is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 29, 2010 Pankaj*