FAO No.3703 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3703 of 2009 Date of Decision. 26.07.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, having its registered office at SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through Sh. Baljit Singh, Deputy Manager (Legal). .........Appellant Versus Nirma Devi aged 55 years, wife of Sh. Bhalle Ram resident of village Umra Tehsil Hansi Distt., Hisar and others .......Respondents Present: Ms. Sonal Datta, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, 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 in appeal challenging the issue of quantum on the basis that the permission had been granted by the Tribunal to defend the case on all grounds under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Before the Tribunal, the evidence was that the deceased was working as a sales person and was also having the milk dairy, earning Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal, however, held that there was no proof and took the income to be RS.3,500/- per month. It provided for a deduction of 1/3rd and arrived at a dependence of Rs.2334/- and applied a multiplier of 17 and determined a compensation of FAO No.3703 of 2009 -2- Rs.4,67,136/-. Learned counsel would state that it is grossly high, for the Tribunal did not take the age of the claimant as relevant in the manner laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UPSRTC Vs. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362 and adopted a multiplier had a bearing only to the age of the deceased. The certitude is obtained in the matter of determination of compensation for death through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009(6) SCC 121 where it has provided a formula for arriving at compensation for death and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has suggested that in case of bachelors with prospects of marriage and fall in the contribution, the deduction of personal expenses must be taken as 50%. I would, therefore, take the monthly contribution to the family at Rs.1750/- instead of Rs.2334/- as taken by the Tribunal. The yearly contribution should have been, therefore, Rs.21,000/- and adopting a multiplier of 17 for a person, who was aged 31 years, the extent of dependence ought to have been arrived at Rs.3,57,000/-. The Tribunal has already provided for Rs.14,000/- towards the conventional heads of claim which I will retain and in all, the amount that shall become payable would be Rs.3,71,000/-. It shall carry interest @9% in the manner provided by the Tribunal. 3. The award of the Tribunal shall stand modified to provide for a compensation of Rs.3,71,000/- with interest @9%. The appeal is partly allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 26, 2010 Pankaj*