IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1200 of 2001 Date of decision: 06.07.2010 M/s Parkash Alloys, Jagadhari and others ....Appellants versus Dr. Vinita Pasricha and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. N.C.Sahni, Advocate, and Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 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 appeal is at the instance of the insured, the insured having been transposed as the respondent already by orders of Court. 2. The quantum awarded by the Tribunal is disputed on the ground that the choice of multiplier has been high. It is a case of an medical doctor/student, who was income tax assessee, aged 30 years, the claimants were parents and widow. The tax returns showed the annual income of Rs.38,600/- for the year 1993-94 and Rs.62,000/- for the year 1994-95. The Tribunal had taken the contribution to the family as 7,000/- per month and applied the multiplier of 18. The learned senior counsel states that when there were documentary proofs to show that the income of the deceased was only around Rs.6,000/-, the dependence FAO No.1200 of 2001 - 2 - assessed at Rs.7,000/- per month for the family is excessive. In a case of a doctor, who was also a student for higher studies, there was certainly a prospect of increase in income over the period of years. If he had been earning Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of death, it can certainly be expected for a medical practitioner that the earning could have gone more over a period of time. The extent of dependence assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- per month, under the circumstances, shall not be seen to be excessive. The choice of multiplier for a person, who was 30 years of age and who had higher package of income could not have been 18 and, in my view, the appropriate multiplier would have been only 16. If so reckoned, the amount that would become payable would Rs.13,44,000/-. The claim for loss of consortium for the wife shall be taken as Rs.15,000/- and a further provision of Rs.5,000/- towards the funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss to estate could be also added. In all, the amount would be Rs.13,79,000/- and could be rounded off Rs.13,80,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,12,000/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal shall stand scaled down to Rs.13,80,000/- . The trial Court granted the interest at 12% which is also contended by the learned senior counsel to be excessive. The interest shall stand scaled down to 9%. The award of the Tribunal, under the circumstances, is modified to provide for a compensation of Rs.13,80,000/- with interest at 9% from the date of accident. The appeal is allowed in part. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 06.07.2010 sanjeev