FAO No.1573 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1573 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision. 04.03.2011 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., having its Divisional Office at Hisar Road, Sirsa through its Divisional Manager at Sirsa through Manager Legal ......Appellant Versus Sarita Rani widow of Sh. Manoj Kumar and others.....Respondents Present: Ms. Vandna Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6. 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. FAO No.1573 of 2008 1. The insurance company, which had the benefit of defence on all grounds under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act is on appeal against the award, directing 50% of the amount assessed by it to be paid by the appellant-insurance company, which was the insurer of the indica car which was involved in the accident. The accident was a collision between two vehicles. The Tribunal found that both the drivers of the vehicle had been guilty of negligence and apportioned the liability of the respective insurers as 50:50. On the issue of negligence, I do not think there is any need to be detained for a further appraisal in view of the fact that arising out of the same accident two other claim petitions had been decided by the MACT, Kaithal and the learned counsel FAO No.1573 of 2008 (O&M) -2- appearing for the respondents points out that the insurance company has accepted the finding and has also satisfied the awards. The connected cases, which had been disposed of are the MACT Cases No.19 of 2006 and 20 of 2006 filed at the instance of Pinki and others and Ashwani Kaushik respectively. I will, therefore, consider this case only with reference to the quantum. 2. The deceased was said to be 35 years of age and was proprietor of a pharmaceutical manufacturing company. He was an income tax assessee at the time of his death and the tax return had been filed subsequent to his death for the year ending with 31.03.2006. The income tax return showed the income of Rs.97,818/- for the assessment year 2006-07 and in the year 2004-05 that was during the time when the deceased was alive and when he had filed the same, it showed an income of Rs.38,150/-. The attempt of the insurer was, therefore, to show that the tax return that was submitted posthumously had deliberately increased the income to obtain a larger compensation. 3. The claimants were the widow, three children and parents. The claimants had contended that the 1st claimant's husband was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Without reference to these records, the Tribunal had merely taken the monthly income to be Rs.9,000/-, made a deduction of 1/3rd and adopted a multiplier of 17. Learned counsel for the insurance company is aggrieved both about the arbitrary fiction of income as well as choice of multiplier, which according to her was high for the assumption that the deceased was 35 years of age when he was actually 37 years of age and therefore, the appropriate multiplier would have been only 13. FAO No.1573 of 2008 (O&M) -3- 4. A person managing his own business, who had registered an increase in income from the previous year is no big surprise and I will not have any suspicion that this income had been deliberately boosted to claim a larger compensation. I will reappraise the compensation on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 and tabulate the compensation as follows:- FATAL ACCIDENTS Age 35 years Occupation proprietor Claimants Widow, three minor children and parents Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Sl. No. Amount (Rs) Amount (Rs.) 1 Income 9000/- 97818/- 2 Add, % of increase 30% / 50% 3 Average monthly income x 12 4 Deduction (1/2 , 1/3, 1/4, 1/5) 1/3rd 1/4th 5 Multiplicand 72000 73363.5 6 Multiplier 17 15 7 Loss of dependence 12,24,000 11,00,452.50 8 Medical Expenses & Transportation 9 Loss of Consortium and love and affection to minor children 20000 10 Loss to estate 11 Funeral expenses 10000 10000 Total 12,24,000 11,40,452/- rounded off to 11,40,500 5. The Tribunal has determined a compensation of Rs.12,24,000/- and therefore, there is marginal decrease in the assessment of compensation. The liability shall be on the respective insurance companies of the two vehicles and therefore, as far as the appellant is concerned, it will stand reduced to the extent mentioned above. The Tribunal had made rather a lopsided allocation of FAO No.1573 of 2008 (O&M) -4- Rs.7,74,000/- to the widow, Rs.1,00,000/- each child and Rs.75,000/- to each of the parents. I will revise it and hold that the compensation amongst the widow and children shall be equal and the parents together take a share equal to one share. Consequently, the proportion will be 4/5th of the whole award will be shared amongst the widow and children and 5th share shall be taken equally amongst the parents. As regards the parent's share the amount shall be immediately recoverable and in so far as the widow's share is concerned having regard to the fact that death has taken in the year 2006 and I have adopted a multiplier of 15, I will provide for 30% of the amount to be withdrawn immediately by the widow and the remaining 75% shall be split into seven shares, first share shall be for a period of one year, second share for a period of two years and so on upto a period of seven years. On the respective dates of maturity, the amount shall be paid to the 1st claimant. As far as the minor children are concerned, they shall be retained upto the period of majority and on the respective dates of majority, 50% of the amount shall be permitted to the withdrawn and the 50%^ shall be retained for a period of 5 years to be split in five different shares, first for a period of one years, second for a period of two years and so on upto 5th year. The interest on the amounts held on behalf of the minors' share shall be paid to the mother for their maintenance once in three months. 6. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 04 , 2010 Pankaj*