FAO No.3840 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH X Obj No.86-CII of 2010 and FAO No.3840 of 2010 Date of Decision.06.12.2010 Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Senior Executive Legal, M-10, Deepsons Building NDSF, Part-II, 2nd Floor, New Delhi ......Appellant Versus Smt. Sukhdevi widow of Subhash Chand son of Wazir Singh, village Bhambewa, District Jind and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the cross-objectors. 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 is at the instance of the insurance company seeking for reduction of compensation awarded for death of the 1st claimant's husband, Subhash, who was serving as Constable in BSF. He was 33 years of age and he was drawing a gross salary of Rs.14460/-. The Tribunal had assessed a compensation of Rs.20,97,240/-. Out of this, the Tribunal awarded Rs.11,00,000/- to the widow and made a direction for withdrawal to Rs.3,00,000/- and for deposit of Rs.8 lacs in a Nationalized Bank for a period of three years. The remaining amount of compensation of Rs.9,97,240/- was directed to be distributed between petitioners No.2 to 4 in equal shares. As regards FAO No.3840 of 2010 -2- the amount due to claimants No.2 and 3, who were minors, there was a direction for deposit in a Nationalized Bank and for share of 4th claimant, who was the mother, amount was directed to be paid immediately. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer that the claimants would be entitled to pension and therefore, appropriate deductions are also to be made. I would reject the contention on the ground that the pension is a deferred wage and is not an amount paid gratuitously for death. Any amount which the legal representatives of the deceased secures must be taken, therefore, as the amount which the deceased had earned and it is payable to the family. There are also adequate authorities on this issue that the receipt of pension by the representatives of the deceased shall not impact in any way the determination of compensation and make any room for deduction on that ground. The assessment of compensation, therefore, is undertaken without reference to the pension that is being received by the members of the family. 3. Without much ado, I would reappraise the compensation in the manner laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009(6) SCC 121. The Tribunal had not provided for possible increase of salary in future and I would apply a 50% increase on the gross salary and deduct 10% as going towards tax and take the balance of amount as the average salary, would make a deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses and adopt a multiplier of 16. If 10% deduction were to be made for tax, the total amount that would FAO No.3840 of 2010 -3- become payable would be Rs.28,11,000/-. I would add Rs.5,000/- as loss of consortium to the wife and Rs.5,000/- each to each one of the minor children and also add an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss to estate and Rs.2500/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the total amount that will become payable would be Rs.28,33,500/-. The amount in excess of what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear the interest @6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 4. The amount, which is awarded in addition to what has been granted by the Tribunal shall be distributed in the same proportion in which it has been directed to be done by the Tribunal. Having regard to the fact that I have adopted a multiplier of 16, I would direct that additional amount shall be kept in deposit for a period of 10 years and the same shall be split into 10 shares with the first share being deposited for one year, the second share for two years and so on upto the 10th year. As far as the mother of the deceased is concerned, the same should be directed to be paid without any direction for deposit. As regards the minors' share is concerned, the same shall be held in deposit during the period of minority and released on attaining majority. 5. The appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed and the cross objection is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 06, 2010 Pankaj*