IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1770 of 1997 Date of decision:25.08.2010 Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Jagdish Chander Ahuja and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.1771 of 1997 Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Sh. Ram Lubhaya and others ...Respondents III. FAO No.1865 of 1997 Jagdish Chander Ahuja and another ....Appellants versus Ravinder Singh Rana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- Present: Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO Nos.1770 and 1771 of 1997 and for respondent No.3 in FAO No.1865 of 1997. Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the appellants in FAO No.1865 of 1997 and for respondents 1 and 2 in FAO No.1770 of 1997 and for respondents 4 and 5 in FAO No.1771 of 1997. ----- 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 ? ----- FAO No.1770 of 1997 - 2 - K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. All the three appeals arise out of the same accident. Two appeals filed by the Insurance Company on the issue of quantum and one filed by the claimants seeking for enhancement. 2. As regards the contention of the Insurance Company on the quantum, the learned counsel for the insurer points out that the Insurance Company has moved an application under Section 170 at the Appellate Court. In my view a case of collusion must be brought at the trial if there was a basis and after satisfying the award, it cannot be taken up for the first time in appeal. An appeal could always be shown to be vitiated by other circumstances such as fraud which may fall outside the umbrage of Section 170 but it is merely a case of collusion which is urged. It cannot be permitted to be taken in appeal. The application for permission under Section 170 is rejected and the appeals on quantum shall therefore fail and are dismissed. 3. As regards the appeal for enhancement of compensation sought at the instance of the parents, the deceased was a bachelor aged 23 years. He had been a member of the civil aviation club and the evidence was led through the father to say that the son was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month, the Tribunal took the income to be Rs.6,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 15 after providing for 1/3rd for personal expenses. The learned counsel would contend that the choice of multiplier was grossly low for a person, who was aged 23 years, there had been at some time an attempt to factor the prospect of marriage for the bachelor and a reduction in contribution to the parents and FAO No.1770 of 1997 - 3 - consequently, the Courts were adopting a multiplier on the basis of the age of the claimants. Schedule-II adopts a different formula which has only the age of the deceased as the relevant criterion. Still later now a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another-2009 ACJ 1298, the formula suggested is to provide for 50% as deduction for personal expenses for a bachelor and provide for multiplier depending on the age of the deceased or injured. 4. If higher multiplier were to be taken for answering the claim, I sought the assistance of the learned counsel to show to me the evidence relating to the income, particularly because the Tribunal had assessed the income to be Rs.6,000/- per month. In the year 1997, an income in excess of Rs.50,000/- itself was taxable and before the Tribunal, no evidence had been offered for showing that he was an income tax assessee or that he was earning Rs.6,000/-. If the income were to be taken therefore as below the taxable limit at Rs.50,000/- and provide for a 50% deduction for the same, the amount that could be taken as contribution would be Rs.25,000/- per year and adopting a multiplier of 18 for a person, who was aged 23 years, the compensation payable would be Rs.4,50,000/-. I take the income at Rs.50,000/- annually by the fact that the deceased belonged to a higher strata that is evidenced by the fact that he had rendered himself as a member of civil aviation which would not have been normally possible for a person, who was unemployed or who had a modest income. I would also provide for the conventional heads of claim that would add to another Rs.10,000/-. In FAO No.1770 of 1997 - 4 - all, the total amount that would become payable would be Rs.4,60,000/-. 5. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.3,12,000/- as compensation. The amount shall now stand increased in the manner referred to above and the amount in addition shall bear interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The appeal filed in FAO No.1865 of 1997 is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.08.2010 sanjeev