IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.31417-CII of 2010 in FAO No.600 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision:21.12.2010 Munesh Devi and others ....Appellants versus Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocate, and Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana, for respondents 1 to 3. None for respondents 4 and 5. Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for respondent No.6. ---- 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 application is filed for recalling the order passed on 10.11.2010 when the appeals were dismissed for default. Along side this appeal filed by the appellants were two other appeals filed by the Transport Corporation assailing the very same awards as having been in excess. By virtue of the accident, the driver and a passenger, who was the wife of the owner of the vehicle, died. Considering the claim for compensation for the driver, the evidence which had been tendered FAO No.600 of 1987 - 2 - through the owner was that he was used to pay Rs.900/- as salary and he also paid Rs.200/- extra on days when outstation journeys were undertaken. The Tribunal, however, relied on a salary voucher produced in the course of trial and took the salary as stated in the voucher namely at Rs.800/- per month as the salary and 1/3rd cut had been applied for personal expenses and the Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 20. As regards the choice of multiplier, the Tribunal was really providing the multiplier in excess of what is normally impermissible. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in Trilok Chandra Versus U.P. Road Transport Corporation that in no account shall the multiplier exceed 18. If the choice of multiplier were to be reworked as 18, it will be seen that even if adequate provision is made for loss of consortium and loss to estate, the amount already assessed would require no modification. 2. Learned counsel also urges that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently laid down in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another-2009 ACJ 1298, that for a person, who was less than 40 years of age, a provision for increase in salary at 50% must be provided. We have not come by any dispensation that in all cases when a salary is shown as established, there shall be an addition of 50% and an assumption of prospect of increase in salary must be taken. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was laying down specific conditionalities for invoking a prospect of increase in the context of public employments or employments where there was a definite security of tenure and scales of pay were likely to be increased. While this judgment cannot be said to exclude provision for future increase in private employments, I would FAO No.600 of 1987 - 3 - still not apply in a case where he was employed as a driver as private individual. The loss of value of money and increase in cost of living are definitely factors which could prompt some situation for providing for some increase but the assessment of compensation is invariably made on the salary last drawn at the time of the death. Unless specific evidence or prospect of increase is brought through evidence, the method of providing for compensation and providing for lumpsum will themselves provide an adequate buffer against the inflationary trends and erosion of value of money. I will, therefore, not subject the appraisal made by the Tribunal for an upward revision by providing for a prospect of a future increase in such a situation. The appeal is dismissed. 3. As regards the claim for enhancement of compensation for the wife of the first claimant, she was said to be a partner in a business run under the name M/s Pushap Sons International. The income tax returns had been filed to show that the share of profit allotted to the wife ranged between Rs.24,760/- being the highest to Rs.6,580/- being the lowest. I have seen through the income tax returns which merely take a percentage of profit and it is not possible to take the loss of profit earned as a salary. Evidence was, however, given by the husband that she was being paid Rs.2,000/- as salary for her participation in the business. If there was payment of such salary, it should have been definitely reflected in the income and expenditure statement of the firm that ought to have included the salary paid to the partner as one of the expenditure items. I do not find any such reference. Again it must be noticed in cases where the capital assets of business are available, the entire value of the capital FAO No.600 of 1987 - 4 - assets or the income from the business cannot form the basis for determination of the loss occasioned by the death of a person, who was carrying on the business. This point has been illustrated by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rani Gupta Versus United India-2009 (13) SCC 498, that dealt with the case of a person, aged 46 years, who had been running a business and the capital assets of the family was still retained. In a case where the business turnover was in terms of several lakhs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had provided for an income of Rs.9,000/-. This particular case relates to the year 1987 and if the Tribunal had taken the average loss of income at Rs.7,500/-, the Tribunal was doing so on the basis of documentary evidence that had been placed and when it chose to discard the oral evidence adduced by the parties. It may seem shockingly low in a case where a consideration is made after 23 years, but if an attempt is made to set the clock back and see the appraisal of the Tribunal, I do not find that there was anything amiss in the judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, also factored the value of her domestic services to the family at Rs.300/- per month and added Rs.3,600/- per annum to the extent of dependency to the family and after deducting 1/3rd, it was taken as Rs.4,780/-. In all, the loss of dependency to the family was taken as Rs.8,380/-. The Tribunal had taken a multiplier of 12 for a woman, who was 46 years. There could only be a very marginal increase for a person if we must apply a multiplier of 13 instead of 12, the amount will be Rs.1,08,940/-. I would also provide for an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the husband and provide a further sum of Rs.2,500/- for loss to estate and FAO No.600 of 1987 - 5 - Rs.2,500/- for funeral expenses. In all, the total sum that will become payable will come to Rs.1,18,940/-. The Tribunal has already provided for Rs.1,05,560/- and the amount in excess shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition to the date of payment. The liability shall be on the State namely, the respondents 1 to 3. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 21.12.2010 sanjeev