F.A.O.NO. 1976 OF 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1976 OF 2005 Date of decision:12th August, 2010 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Nirmala Devi and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 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, having secured permission to defend the case on all grounds under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is on appeal on the question of quantum. The deceased was aged 36 years and was working in Haryana Roadways. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 6,306/-per month and there are claimants who had produced the evidence to the effect that he was drawing Rs. 1800/- as over time allowance. The Tribunal added the over time allowance also as a relevant factor, having regard to previous four months' experience of the driver, having availed over time allowance and F.A.O.NO. 1976 OF 2005 2 determined the compensation. 2. The ground urged in the appeal is that the over time allowance cannot be taken as permanent feature and it ought not to have been considered at all. According to learned counsel, gross salary less tax alone should have been the relevant consideration. We have come by disposition of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 that if the deceased was in regular service, it would be appropriate even to factor of future increase in salary and for a person who is less than 40 years, 50% increase was advocated in the said judgment must be taken as the multiplicand. Even if the overtime allowance could not be taken as relevant if the compensation is arrived at by making due provision for future increase in salary, it would only be found that the compensation arrived at already cannot be faulted. 3. Having regard to the above situation, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal as regards quantum. The appeal is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 12th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik