FAO No.1734 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1734 of 2009 Date of Decision.29.09.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited through its Manager, Regional Office, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Deputy Manager ......Appellant Versus Sudesh wife of late Surender Malik son of Lakshman Singh 33 years and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. None for respondent Nos.5 and 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. 1. The insurance company is on appeal challenging the award on the ground that the claimant had deliberately suppressed the fact that after the death of 1st claimant's husband in a motor accident, which gave rise to the claim petition, the member of the family, who were dependents had been provided with a provision for salary @Rs.7816/- for a period of 12 years from the date of death i.e. 20.02.2007 upto 20.02.2010. He was due for superannuation on 31.05.2026. The deceased was aged 39 years at the time of accident. The details of compensation paid by the Government FAO No.1734 of 2009 -2- under Rule 5 of Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 has been filed as Annexure A-1 and the proceedings issued by the Principal, Govt. P.G. College, Jhajjar granting Rs.7816/- per month payable upto 20.02.2019 has been filed as Annexure A-2. They are relevant pieces of evidence for consideration of compensation and I, therefore, allow the application filed by the insurance company for admission of these documents, in view of the fact that the truth of the recitals in Annexures A-1 and A-2 and the fact of additional benefits that are given by the Government are not denied by the claimants. 2. This court has already considered the effect of the scheme and the duty to take appropriate note of the benefit in the judgment in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Santosh in FAO No.3432 of 2009 and batch of cases. The judgment has considered all the relevant legal propositions and particularly in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Kanta Aggarwal 2008(11) SCC 366. I would provide for a scale of compensation in the same manner giving due allowance to the prospect of increase of salary and also of the fact that the Government was providing for the relief only for a period of 12 years and for a person aged 39 years, the appropriate multiplier would have been 15. 3. In this case, the Tribunal while awarding the compensation has taken the salary to be Rs.6878/- and applied the deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses and taken the monthly dependence at Rs.4500/- per month. The Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 15, FAO No.1734 of 2009 -3- which is the appropriate multiplier as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009(6) SCC 121. It has determined the compensation payable at Rs.8,15,000/-. Actually the claimant is now being paid the amount in excess of amount the Tribunal has awarded, which is Rs.7816/- per month and is to be taken as the contribution to the family even after his death. While the Tribunal has awarded a multiplier of 15, the claimant is being paid a compensation for 12 years which means there is an application of 12 multiplier. The dispensation in Sarla Verma's case provides for a provision for future increase. The Tribunal ought to have provided a future increase, which should have been 50% on the salary being received, which by the evidence showed that he was drawing Rs.6828. 4. As per the amount awarded by the Government, the amount of contribution to the family is Rs.7816/- for 12 years, which means Rs.7816x12x12=11,25,504/-. If the scale of compensation as per the Sarla Verma's case were to be taken for a salary at Rs.6828 by providing a 50% increase, the average salary would have been Rs.10242/- and if a deduction of 1/4th were to be applied for personal consumption and 3/4th of the amount were taken as contribution to the family, the amount of contribution would have been Rs.7681/-. The yearly dependence would have been Rs.92172/-. If we adopt a multiplier of 15, the amount of compensation would have been Rs.13,82,580/-. The difference in the amount of what otherwise it will fetch to what the party is literally getting now would be Rs.2,57,076/-. I would add an amount FAO No.1734 of 2009 -4- of Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium to the wife and Rs.5,000/- each one of the minor children for love and affection. I would add another Rs.5,000/- towards loss to estate and Rs.2500/- for funeral expenses. In all the amount that will become payable, would be Rs.2,89,576/-. The compensation already granted by the Tribunal shall stand reduced as above. 5. The appeal filed by the insurance company shall stand allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE September 29, 2010 Pankaj*