FAO No.868 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.868 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION: March 10, 2011 SMT. BHAGWATI DEVI ETC. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS ARJAN SINGH ETC. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. S.K. JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR. VARUN GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR MR. O.P. GOYAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2. MR. PARDEEP GOYAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a male aged 41 who was a Teacher in a Government school. The claimants were widow and 4 minor children. His proved income was `2481/-. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of `2,68,800/-. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks for reappraisal on the basis of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported as 2009 6 SCC 121. Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 states that the decision of Sarla Verma's case (supra) cannot be applied in respect of the accident that had taken place before the decision. He also refers to me certain passages where the Court was saying that it FAO No.868 of 1989 -2- need not factor the scope of increase in salary in respect of cases that have been already disposed of. 3. I do not think I can derive anything favourable to an insurer to contend that said decision cannot be applied for invoking the principle of prospect of future increase. Even the lack of pleading is irrelevant for, we are applying a point of law as determined for deciding what is just compensation. It is a judicial approach that will secure an appropriate compensation that becomes the guiding factor. I will reappraise the compensation in the light of the decision and tabulate the compensation as follows:- Fatal Accidents Age: 41 Occupation Claimants Wife, 4 minor children Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court Sr.No. Amount ` Amount ` 1. Annual Income 2481 2481 2. Add % of increase 30%/50%/Nil 3225 3. Deduction (1/2,1/3, 1/4, 1/5) 1/3 1/4 4. Multiplicand 1600 x 12 2419x12 5. Multiplier 14 14 6. Loss of Dependence 4,06,392 7. Medical Expenses 8. Loss of Consortium + loss of love and affection for children 15,000 9. Loss to Estate 5000 10. Funeral Expenses 2000 Total 2,68,800/- 4,28,392/- 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company states that the limit of liability of the insurance company is `1,50,000/-. The liability of insurance company shall stand restricted to `1,50,000/-. In a FAO No.868 of 1989 -3- connected case, it appears that the insurance company was directed to pay the whole amount and recover the balance in excess of `1,50,000/- and the counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 states that the same direction be given. The same is also issued making the insurer liable to pay the whole amount and recover the balance in excess of `1,50,000/- from the insured. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. March 10, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE