F.A.O.NO. 590 OF 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 590 OF 1993 and Cross Objection No. 30-CII of 1994 Date of decision:7th February, 2011 Amolak Singh .......Appellant Versus Smt. Krishana Verma and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. Paul S.Saini, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is at the instance of the owner of the car, challenging the quantum of compensation. He was an income tax assessee. He was said to be 49 years of age and the income tax returns filed had shown the income of the deceased at `80338.41/-, `76932.95/-, `50280/- for the years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 respectively. The Tribunal made an average of the three assessment F.A.O.NO. 590 OF 1993 2 years, took the income to be `72,000/-, made a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses and adopted a multiplier of 16. The Tribunal assessed `7,68,000/- but made a further deduction of 20% for uncertainties of life and lumpsum payment and awarded `6,14,400/-. 2. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would have grievance about the average income taken and would urge that the income for the last year before his death must have been taken and not an over all income. It is also contended that the choice of multiplier of 16 was on higher side and for a person of 55 years of age appropriate multiplier would have been 11. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would contest the issue of income and contend that he was an income tax practitioner himself and the average income adopted by the Tribunal can not be faulted. If at all it should be even larger than what had been taken by the Tribunal. It is also contended by him that deceased was not 55 years of age but the post mortem certificate revealed that he was 49 years old and the choice of multiplier ought not to have made a difference, since the Tribunal had erroneously made a deduction for lumpsum payment and uncertainties of life by 20%. 4. Having regard to the particular profession of the deceased where the income was around `75,000/-, I will not take the average income assessed at `72,000/- as on the higher side. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant would point out that component of tax has not been deducted and even for the last assessment for 1989-90 he F.A.O.NO. 590 OF 1993 3 had paid tax of `9,810/-. If the income is to be taken at ` 72,000/-, and multiplier of 13 were to be adopted, on the basis of the age as 49 years and still make a deduction for 1/3rd for personal expenses, the total amount that will become payable at `6,24,000/-. If the amount under conventional heads of claim for loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses were also to be added , the total amount would become payable at `6,50,000/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal was even less than the amount now reckoned. Compensation is after all a manner of approximation and I would not subject the award for re-appraisal for a few thousands of rupees one way or the other by reducing some amount towards tax . The over all compensation determined is just and I will affirm the award and dismiss the appeal. 5. Having regard to the fact that the amount as determined was marginally higher than what he would have been otherwise entitled to, if a deduction for tax were also to be made, I find no reason to accommodate the plea for enhancement. I maintain the award and dismiss the cross objection as well. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 7th February, 2011 Shivani Kaushik