F.A.O.NO. 1371 OF 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1371 OF 1989 Date of decision:20th August, 2010 Smt. Kiran Mehra and others .......Appellants Versus Shri G.S.Grewal and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation of the awarded amount for death of Mohinder Pal Mehra aged 45 years involving the insured truck. He was a businessman and he was assessed to tax as found in the Income Tax return. The Tribunal had taken the income to be Rs. 2,000/- provided for 1/3rd deduction and applied a multiplier of 16. The contention in appeal for enhancement by the learned senior counsel is that the Tribunal did not properly assess the compensation, he was supporting a large family, his widow, three minor children and F.A.O.NO. 1371 OF 1989 2 two aged parents. The deduction should have only been as 1/5th not 1/3rd for personal expenses. It was also contended that the deceased was doing a business and his income would have increased over a period of time. 2. It must be remembered that the accident took place in the year 1986 and we are examining the case with reference to the evidence which was adduced before the Court at that time. We may have come by a different experience in 2010 that a businessman earns a larger amount but that cannot allow us to vary our perception. We will have to recount the situation as it existed in the year when the objection was filed and examine the issue of compensation on the basis of evidence adduced. While I accede to the contention that the Tribunal should have provided for a larger contribution to the family, having regard to large size of the family and provide for 1/5th deduction for personal expenses, the compensation could be worked out on what was appropriate with reference to the multiplier as well. The Tribunal had provided for 16 multiplier for a person aged 45 years which in my view is rather high. The appropriate multiplier would have been 13 and if the contribution is taken as 4/5th of his income the annual dependency would be Rs. 19,200/- and the compensation payable would be Rs. 2,49,600/-. 3. Further grievance of the counsel is that no provision for loss of consortium for the wife, loss of love and affection for the children, loss to estate and funeral expenses had been provided for. Even if all those heads were to be accommodated, F.A.O.NO. 1371 OF 1989 3 I would provide for Rs. 10,000/- to the wife for loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000/- for each child for love and affection and I also admit a claim to compensation for Rs. 5,000/- each for loss to estate and funeral expenses. The amount to be granted approximate to the amount already determined by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,84,600/-. I do not, therefore, make any amendment with reference to the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal. Learned counsel however, would submit that the Tribunal has erroneously restricted the liability to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The policy had been filed in court which shows that extra premium had been paid by the owner to obtain an unlimited liability. The counsel for the Insurance Company would join issues on the said contention by stating that there had been corrigendum issued to the policy restricting the policy to only Rs. 1,50,000/-. No such contention was taken at the Tribunal and no document was also filed before the Tribunal. If there is any restriction of liability it will be independently worked out by the insurer if he is so advised against insured. As far as the claim of the claimants are concerned, the insurer shall undertake liability in full in the manner determined by the Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal is modified only to make the insurer liable for the amount determined. The claim for enhancement, however is rejected. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 20th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik