F.A.O.No. 3449 OF 2001 and F.A.O.No. 637 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 3449 OF 2001 Date of decision:5th October, 2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., Delhi having its Regional Office in SCO No. 337-40, Sector-35, Chandigarh, through its duly constituted attorney. .......Appellant Versus Ram Patti Devi and others ........Respondents F.A.O.No. 637 of 2002 Ram Patti Devi .......Appellant Versus Thakur Dass and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for the claimants. 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 Insurance Company is in appeal, challenging the quantum, having had the benefit of all defences under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Its F.A.O.No. 3449 OF 2001 and F.A.O.No. 637 of 2002 -2- another contention is that the claimant has also not established the factum of accident. The fact of the accident itself is not in doubt. The FIR makes a reference of a bus bearing Registration No. DL-IP-8471. There is an evidence of PW-2 Kharaiti Lal who had spoken about rash and negligent driving of the driver. The accident has resulted in death and there was an evidence enough for the Tribunal to find that there had been negligence. 2. Even as regards the quantum, the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. The deceased was a tubewell operator in Public Health Department and with the security of tenure that he had, he would have earned increments in the course of his career. Provision for future increases shall also have to be made in terms of several decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121. The Tribunal had taken evidence of proof of his income of Rs. 3,703/- deducted 1/3rd and adopted a multiplier of 13. If the dispensation in Sarla Verma's case(supra) were to be accepted then 30% increase must be provided which would mean an additional amount of Rs. 1,111.20/-. He was aged 43 years and the appropriate multiplier would have been 14. If an additional amount that determined above is added in his salary, deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses and adopt a multiplier of 14, the amount of compensation that would become payable would be Rs. 5,39,280/-. I F.A.O.No. 3449 OF 2001 and F.A.O.No. 637 of 2002 -3- would add the conventional heads of claim for loss of consortium, for funeral expenses and loss to estate. I round off the additional amount at Rs. 5,50,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 4,40,368/- and the amount in excess of what has already been determined by the Tribunal will bear interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The appeal by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the appeal by the claimants for enhancement is allowed to the extent mentioned above. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 5th October, 2010 Shivani Kaushik