F.A.O No.499 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH X Obj. No.40-CII of 1999 in/and F.A.O No.499 of 1999 Date of Decision. 29.10.2010 New India Assurance Company Limited, Pathankot through its Regional Manager, Sector 17, Chandigarh ......Appellant versus Kuljeet wd/o Jaswant Singh son of Bhagwan Singh and others ....Respondents 2. X Obj No.41-CII of 1999 in/and FAO No.500 of 1999 New India Assurance Company Limited, Pathankot through its Regional Manager, Sector 17, Chandigarh ......Appellant versus Indu Bala wdiwo of Nirdev Singh son of Amin Chand and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. IPS Kohli, Advocate for the owner-respondent. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for the cross-objectors. None for other respondents. 3. X Obj No.49-CII of 1999 in/and FAO No.1376 of 1999 Dhian Singh son of Shri Karam Chand ......Appellant versus Kuljeet wd/o Jaswant Singh son of Bhagwan Singh and others ....Respondents F.A.O No.499 of 1999 -2- 4. X Obj No.50-CII of 1999 in/and FAO No.1377 of 1999 Dhian Singh son of Shri Karam Chand ......Appellant versus Kuljeet wd/o Jaswant Singh son of Bhagwan Singh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. I.P.S. Kohli, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the insurance company. None for other respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The four appeals arise out of same accident, two are on behalf of the insurance company and two are at the instance of the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Cross objections have also been filed in all the four appeals. In appeals in FAO No.499 and 500 of 1999, the insurance company is seeking permission to contest the case on all the grounds for the first time at the appellate stage. The permission to contest the case is to be taken prior to the institution of the case before the Tribunal or at any rate before passing of the judgment. Such permission cannot be sought first time at the appellate stage. 2. The appeals are not maintainable and consequently dismissed. 3. As regards the claim for compensation urged through cross F.A.O No.499 of 1999 -3- objection in FAO No.499 of 1999, the deceased was 31 years of age and was a Block Development Officer. His salary was proved to be Rs.4668/- per month before the Tribunal. The Tribunal deducted Rs.300/- going towards GPF and took the salary as Rs.4338/-, made a deduction of 1/3rd and adopted a multiplier of 20. I would reappraise the compensation in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 and take the increase on the salary of Rs.4668/- without making any deduction for GPF contribution. The average monthly salary will be Rs.7000/- and if a 1/4th deduction is to be made instead of 1/3rd, the extent for the monthly dependence would be Rs.4550/-. If the multiplier of 16 were to be applied, the loss due to dependence could be Rs.10,08,000/-. As regards the conventional heads of claims for loss of consortium, I will take it to be Rs.10,000/-, I will provide for Rs.5000/- for loss to estate and for funeral expenses. I will provide also for an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection for two children. In all, the total amount that will become payable would be Rs.10,33,000/-. The amount in excess of over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 4. Cross objection in FAO No.499 of 1999 is allowed to the above extent. 5. As regards the case for enhancement through cross objection in FAO No.500 of 199, the Tribunal was considering the case of death of a person, who was said to be earning Rs.2000/-. It had applied a deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses and adopted a F.A.O No.499 of 1999 -4- multiplier of 20. The choice of multiplier was erroneous and if the compensation as provided under Schedule II were to be taken, the maximum multiplier that could be applied is only 18. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is more than what the compensation could become payable by the application of principle brought through Schedule II. I do not want to subject the compensation already awarded to any reduction and maintain the award. 6. The cross objection in FAO No.500 of 1999 is therefore, dismissed. 7. The owner of the offending vehicle involved in the accident is challenging the award in appeals in FAO No.1376 and 1377 of 1999 on the issue of negligence. The said fact has been properly considered by the Tribunal and I find no reason to take a different view. The appeals filed by the owner challenging the issue of negligence is, therefore, dismissed. 8. There is no representation in respect of the cross objectors in FAO Nos.1376 and 1377 of 1999. They are dismissed in default of appearance and non prosecution. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 29, 2010 Pankaj*