FAO No.1245 of 1998 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1245 of 1998 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: January 5, 2011 DARSHAN SHARMA & ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS JASWANT SINGH & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. M.L. SAGGAR, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. MEENU SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR. SANJIV PABBI, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT-INSURANCE COMPANY. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) C.M. No.28323-CII of 2010 C.M. allowed. The case is taken up for final disposal with the consent of whole parties. FAO No.1245 of 1998 The appeal addresses the issue of adequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The deceased was an Assistant Manager with the State Bank of India and was drawing salary a salary of `11,807/-. The Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 10 and provided for 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses. The claimants were widow, a daughter and an aged mother who has been cited as respondent in the claim petition. I will adopt FAO No.1245 of 1998 (O&M) -2- the formula suggested by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported as 2009 6 SCC 121. I will provide prospect of increase in salary by another 30%. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurer states that in the service with the State Bank of India, the promotion will be only on the basis of selection and eligibility and it cannot be inferred in all cases. The provision for increase is not merely for the prospect of promotion but for an inevitable prospect of increase in income over a period of time. I will, therefore, find no occasion to deviate from what has been suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra). I would take the average salary to be `15353/- and I would provide for 10% deduction towards tax. The net salary will be `13818/- and I would make a deduction of 1/3rd and take 2/3rd of his average salary as determined above and take the loss of dependency at `9212/-. I would adopt a multiplier of 13 and take the loss of dependency at `14,37,000/-. I will add `5000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife and provide for a further sum of `5000/- towards loss of estate and `2500/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the total compensation payable shall be `14,49,572/- rounded of to the nearest 10 and take the compensation payable as `14,49,600/-. The amount increased over what has already been determined by the Tribunal shall be payable to the wife and daughter in equal shares. The accident had taken place on 16.6.1996 and since I have adopted a multiplier of 13 which is even less than the number of years that have taken place at the time of accident, I will make no provision of retention of any amount and the direct that whole amount be paid immediately. The liability shall be in the manner as already determined by the Tribunal. FAO No.1245 of 1998 (O&M) -3- The appeal is allowed to the above extent. January 5, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE