F.A.O.NO. 2588 OF 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 2588 OF 1996 Date of decision:6th September, 2010 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Ambala Cantt through its Divisional Manager .......Appellant Versus Smt. Amarjit Kaur and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Sukhwinder Pal Singh, Advocate for Mr. Amit Rawal, 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 on the issue of quantum. The Insurance Company would contend that salary of the deceased was Rs. 2,595/- and the Tribunal had provided for a percentage of increase which was beyond 50% by taking Rs.1,900/- as an average increase and provided Rs. 4,500/- as the salary over a period of time. According to him for a person who was aged between 40 to 50 years, the provision for increase could not have been beyond 30% of the basic salary. The dispensation relating to a provision for future increase was first dealt with in GM, F.A.O.NO. 2588 OF 1996 2 KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas(1994) 2 SCC 176 and later explained through several judgments till dealt in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, in which the particular formula has been given. If in this case the Tribunal has provided for an average salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month to work out the multiplicand, I cannot still allow the insurer to question the quantum. If it was not a clerical error, then an error on quantum could be a ground of challenge only at the instance of the owner. This, in my view, is unexceptional and I shall not permit the insurer to join the issue on quantum or negligence. The appeal is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 6th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik