FAO No.296 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.296 of 2009 Date of Decision:20.05.2011 National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Regional Manager, SCO No.334-336, Sector 34, Chandigarh .......Appellant Versus Narinder Kaur widow of Shri Manmohan Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashok Bector, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None for respondent No.5. Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The point falls for consideration in the appeal is the quantum of income tax liable to be deducted from the income assessed by the Tribunal. The income of the deceased was said to be Rs.16,587.16 and the compensation had been awarded taking the entire income as constituting the appropriate multiplicand for determination of compensation. If a provision for 10% deduction is made on an average as the component of tax and take the net salary at Rs.14,928/- per month as the salary received less tax by the deceased, make a provision for FAO No.296 of 2009 -2- 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses and if a multiplier of 9 were to be taken suitable to the age of the deceased who was aged 57 years, the loss of dependence would be Rs.10,74,816/-. I will make a further provision of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- for loss to estate and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. In all, the total amount that would become payable, will be Rs.10,94,816/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,03,000/- as medical expenses incurred by the claimants. The total amount of compensation that would become payable is more than what the Tribunal has already assessed. I do not find any point in re-assessing the compensation at the instance of the appellant. 2. The award is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 20, 2011 Pankaj*