IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.57-CII of 1997 in/and FAO No.1887 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision:22.11.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Vijay Kumari and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate, for the cross-objectors. Mr. H.S.Bajwa, Advocate, for respondents 8 and 9. ---- 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. There is no representation for the appellant. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. There is a cross-appeal for enhancement of a claim for compensation at the instance of widow, four minor children and parents. The deceased was said to be a mechanic employed in Sweden and he produced the certificate from the employer and exhibited as AW4/A. The certificate made reference to the acquisition of the deceased of a diploma as a mechanic to work in foreign country and the statement of the employer that the deceased was being paid 8,000/- crowns in Cross Objection No.57-CII of 1997 in/and FAO No.1887 of 1996 (O&M) - 2 - Swedish currency. The claimant also produced the bank's statement to show the periodical remittance of the amounts that were credited to the account of the wife. The document was exhibited as A2. The Tribunal merely referred to the fact that the contribution to the family could have been about Rs.2,000/-, adopted a multiplier of 15 for a person, who was aged 42 years and awarded a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. 3. The learned counsel points out that in the face of documentary evidence adduced about the employment of the deceased oversees and the actual remittances which were coming to India, it was unjustified in taking an arbitrary amount of Rs.2,000/- as contribution to the family. It is further contended that even at the worst if Rs.2,000/- were to be provided, the amount of compensation by adopting a multiplier of 15 would be Rs.3,60,000/- and not merely Rs.3 lakhs. The learned counsel further points out that no provision at all had been made for loss of consortium or loss to estate. 4. The manner of disposal of the case by the Tribunal leaves much to be decided. The Tribunal had not considered any documentary evidence, but it has merely taken some arbitrary yardstick and determined a compensation. I have gone through the bank's statement filed and I find that during the relevant year prior to his death, the remittances have been in the range of Rs.2,000/- to Rs.9,500/- in State Bank on a regular basis. I have computed the bank transfers effected from oversees and credited to the account of the claimant that shows that for the month of September to the succeeding August before the death, a total contribution has been in the range of Rs.55,500/-. I will deduct Cross Objection No.57-CII of 1997 in/and FAO No.1887 of 1996 (O&M) -3 - Rs.5,500/- as going towards tax and take Rs.49,950/- as contribution to the family and adopt a multiplier of 14 to take loss of dependency at Rs.6,99,300/-. I will add Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection for the minor children; Rs.5,000/- towards loss to estate and Rs.2,500/- for funeral expenses. In all, the total sum comes to Rs.7,21,800/-. The amount in excess over what has been found by the Tribunal will draw interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 5. The cross appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22.11.2010 sanjeev