FAO No.2964 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2964 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 18.04.2011 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.212-214, First Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory Krishna Kant Legal Manager ......Appellant Versus Smt. Sunita wife of Surender Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. 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 appeal by the insurance company is on the ground that the Tribunal while considering the fact that the family had obtained the benefit under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, found that the claimants were entitled to be paid the salary that was last drawn by the deceased at Rs.34832/- for another period of 12 years. Since the family has come by a full benefit, the Tribunal ought not to have made any assessment to compensation and the amount determined at Rs.5 lacs payable to the claimants for loss of love and affection was very high and ought not to have been awarded. 2. This Court had an occasion to deal with the situation in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Santosh and others in FAO No.3432 FAO No.2964 of 2011 (O&M) -2- of 2009 dated 29.09.2010 and batch of cases where it has been held that the benefit of Haryana Compassionate Assistance shall be definitely duly factored and while arriving the compensation, I have adopted a formula of determining first the compensation that would have become payable as just compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act and deducted the amount that would become payable through the Haryana Compassionate Assistance Scheme. It must be noticed that the amount, which is payable under the Scheme is the amount that was last drawn and could make no provision for prospect of increase. The prospect of increase in income is a definite prospect for a person, who had security of tenure and continued in government service. Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 provides for 30% average increase of income for persons in the age group of 40 to 50 years and the multiplier applicable would be 14. If 30% increase were to be applied on Rs.34832/- and a multiplier of 14 were to be adopted, the amount that could have become payable could be far in excess of Rs.5 lacs. Although the Tribunal has taken the component of love and affection itself as Rs.5 lacs, the overall compensation that has been awarded will still fall short of amount that would come through the formula that this Court referred to in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Santosh and others (supra) above. 3. The award would not require to be interfered with. The appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE April 18, 2011 Pankaj*