F.A.O.NO. 709 OF 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 709 OF 2001 Date of decision:13th September, 2010 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office-II, SCO Nos. 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through Sh.D.K.Anand, Administrative Officer. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Jagiro Devi and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Navin Kapur, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is by the Insurance Company on the question of quantum, particularly with reference to the choice of multiplier. The deceased was said to be a wrestler and a drummer in a Musical Band at the time of death. He was stated to be aged 60 years at the time of accident. Cross examination of the widow yielded to an admission that she was about 17 years or 18 years of age when the partition of India took place and she had a son who has presently 36 years of age. The Tribunal therefore, took that the claimant should have been born some time around 1930 and even, if the deceased was of the same age as the wife, he must have been 70 years in the year F.A.O.NO. 709 OF 2001 2 1999, when the accident took place. Post Mortem certificate gave the age as 50. Its a well known fact that the post mortem report contains only an approximation of age depending on information furnished. In this part of the country, partition was a holocaust and if the party remembered her age with reference to partition, perhaps it is the best method of ascertaining the age. I would therefore, take the age of the deceased to be 70. The appropriate multiplier would have been 5 only. The claimants were widow and three major sons. The Tribunal took the income to be Rs. 3,000/- and provided for an annual contribution to the family at Rs. 28,800/-. I do not want to make any deviation with reference to the said sum and adopt a multiplier of 5 that Rs. 1,44,000/-/ I will add towards conventional heads of claim another Rs. 9,500 towards loss of consortium to the wife, funeral expenses and loss to estate and aggregate the amount to be Rs. 1,53,500/-. The amount already assessed by the Tribunal has been reduced to Rs. 1,53,500/-. Each of the sons will be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- with interest that is accumulated and the remaining amount shall go to the widow of the deceased. The Tribunal has already awarded 12% interest at that time and I do not want to make any modification with reference to the same. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 13th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik