F.A.O.NO. 701 OF 2006 and F.A.O.NO. 1802 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. F.A.O.NO. 701 OF 2006 Date of decision:11th October, 2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, S.C.O.No. 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through Sh. Labh Singh, Administrative Officer, duly constituted attorney. .......Appellant Versus Balwinder Kaur and others ........Respondents 2. F.A.O.No. 1802 of 2006 Balwinder Kaur and others .......Appellants Versus Malkit Singh and others .......Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate, for the claimants. 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 and the claimants are in appeal, F.A.O.NO. 701 OF 2006 and F.A.O.NO. 1802 of 2006 -2- challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the Insurance Company complaining that it is excessive and the claimants seeking for more. 2. The deceased was Assistant Director in Fisheries Department. The salary certificate produced in Court which shows monthly salary as Rs. 15,837/- and after compulsory deductions he had a carry home salary of Rs. 11,767/-. The Tribunal took this to be the basis and then worked out a compensation by adopting a multiplier of 11. The counsel would contend that the compensation was wrongly made without making provision for increase in salary in the manner contemplated in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 for he had a security of tenure of government service. It is also contended by him that the appropriate multiplier would have been 14 not 11. His further contention is that compulsory deductions which were in the nature of saving ought not have been deducted and only permissible deduction shall be income tax payable thereon. I would accede to all these contentions. 3. I would therefore, re-work the compensation on the basis that his salary over Rs. 15,837/- would have been increased over a period of time and take 30% increase to take the average salary at Rs. 20,580/-, I would provide for Rs. 2,000/- as monthly tax component and take the income to be Rs. 18,500/-. He had a family of widow and 2 minor children and I will take 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and take remaining contribution towards the family. The F.A.O.NO. 701 OF 2006 and F.A.O.NO. 1802 of 2006 -3- monthly dependence will be Rs. 12,333/- and the annual dependence would be Rs. 1,48,000/-. If we adopt a multiplier of 14, the amount of compensation that will become payable loss due to dependency Rs. 20,72,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 15,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses which I shall retain. The total amount of compensation that will become payable is Rs. 20,97,000/-. The amount over what has already been awarded shall attract interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The appeal by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the appeal by the claimants is allowed to the above extent. 4. From the date of accident nearly 10 years have elapsed and having regard to the fact that I have adopted a multiplier of 14, I would provide for 75% of the amount to be withdrawn by the claimants and the remaining 25% shall remain deposited for the period of five years. The deposit will be again deposited in five equal moieties for the respective portions of entitlement, the first portion for a period of one year and second for two years and so on for five years and amount shall be payable on the respective dates of maturity, subject however to the condition that the withdrawal of 75% shall be permissible, as far as the children are concerned only if they attain majority and if have not they shall remain in deposits till they respectively attain the age of majority. The mother shall be entitled to withdraw the interest accruals on such deposits with a nationalized F.A.O.NO. 701 OF 2006 and F.A.O.NO. 1802 of 2006 -4- bank towards maintenance of the children. The appeals are allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 11th October, 2010 Shivani Kaushik