FAO No. 220 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) FAO No. 220 of 1988 Dr.Vinod Kumar Khanna ....Appellant Versus Kalu Singh & Ors. ...Respondents 2) FAO No. 221 of 1988 & Cross-Obj.No.43-CII of 2008 Ms.Sangita Khanna and others ....Appellants Versus Kalu Singh & Ors. ...Respondents Date of Decision : 2.12.2008 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3 – The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. ... MAHESH GROVER, J. This order will dispose of F.A.O.Nos.220 and 221 of 1988 and Cross-Objections No.43-CII of 1988. F.A.O.No.221 of 1988 has been preferred by the claimants who are the children of Dr. Rani Bala who lost her life in a FAO No. 220 of 1988 -2- vehicular accident which took place on 27.12.1985. Two separate claim petitions were preferred, one by the four children out of which two were minors and the other by the husband of the deceased. In both the claim petitions compensation was claimed on account of the death of Dr.Rani Bala who was a doctor by profession and engaged in government service. In the claim petition preferred by the children the Tribunal concluded that the salary of the deceased was Rs.2,700/- per month. The dependency was assessed at Rs.600/- per month and by applying a multiplier of 18 the total compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- was awarded. The other claim petition filed by the husband of the deceased was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimants are in appeal. The cross-objections have been preferred by the Insurance Company, owner and driver of the vehicle against the award challenging the issue of negligence. It would be appropriate to deal with the appeals of the claimants in the first instance. In so far as the F.A.O.No. 220 of 1988, which has been preferred by the husband, is concerned, it does not warrant any interference, as it was held that he was not dependent on the deceased and was earning himself. However, nothing has been awarded for the loss of consortium and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that an amount of Rs.50,000/- deserves to be awarded to the appellant in the said appeal by way of consortium which shall be paid to him along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of FAO No. 220 of 1988 -3- the petition till the date of its realisation. In so far as the appeal preferred by the children of the deceased is concerned, it is to be noticed that the deceased was a government doctor and was drawing a salary of Rs.2,700/- per month. It was claimed by the appellants that she was also given to private practice and was earning Rs.600/- per month therefrom. However, there is no documentary proof regarding this claim. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly discarded the same. However, the Tribunal has gone wrong in not considering the future prospects of the deceased. Normally, in the cases where a person is regularly employed and there is bright future, the same have to be taken into account. The principle governing the assessment of compensation in such like cases is that the salary of the incumbent has to be doubled and then added to the single salary and the average of the two figures is to be taken. In this manner, if the amount is calculated it comes to Rs.2,700x2=5,400+2,700=8,100%2=4,050. 1/3rd of the amount should have been deducted which is the normal mode of deduction for personal expenses. In this manner, the dependency comes to Rs.2,700/- per month. The deceased was aged 48 years and she would have attained the age of superannuation after 10 years. But considering the fact that she was a qualified doctor, she would have certainly earned almost this amount for another 30 years. Even otherwise, the multiplier as given in the schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act considering the age of the deceased is 13. Therefore, the multiplier of 13 is applied and in this manner the compensation comes to Rs.2,700x12x13=4,21,200/-. Rs.25,000/- are awarded on account FAO No. 220 of 1988 -4- of funeral expenses and loss of love and affection to the children. Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs.4,46,200/-. The enhanced compensation shall be paid to the claimants/appellants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till its realisation. The liability to pay the enhanced amount of compensation shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. As far as the cross-objections are concerned, they have been preferred jointly by the owner, driver and the Insurance Company and are not maintainable. No application has been moved to rectify the error and in any eventuality even it had not done so, the Insurance Company was precluded from challenging the issue of negligence. Therefore, they are devoid of any merit and are dismissed. The appeals and cross-objections are disposed of accordingly. 2.12.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) dss JUDGE