F.A.O.NO. 2947 of 2001 and F.A.O.No. 3533 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 2947 OF 2001 Date of decision:28th September, 2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. .......Appellant Versus Paltu Ram and others ........Respondents F.A.O.No. 3533 of 2001 Paltu Ram and others ........Appellants Versus Daulat Ram and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. Mr. Vibhor Bansal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6. None for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 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 is in appeal, on the issue of quantum and an application is filed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before this Court. It F.A.O.NO. 2947 of 2001 and F.A.O.No. 3533 of 2001 -2- is contended that it did not have the benefit of all defences before the Tribunal itself. I cannot extend the benefit of all defences for the first time in the appeal only. 2. There is a cross appeal for enhancement at the instance of the claimants where the deceased was a bachelor aged 23 years and the claimants were father, mother, brother and sisters. He was said to be the only earning member in the family. The Tribunal took the income at Rs. 3,000/-, provided for Rs. 2,000/- as the extent of dependence to the family, adopted a multiplier of 16 and granted compensation. Learned counsel would contend that the Tribunal must have adopted a multiplier of 18. There have been several formulas adopted for death of bachelors. In U.P.State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra(1996) 4 SCC 362 the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that Schedule-II itself contained several mistakes and pointed out to the fact that in case of bachelors the choice of multiplier must depend on the age of the claimants and not the age of the deceased. In Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, it laid down a formula for 50% deduction and provided for a multiplier depending on the age of the deceased. If the income were to be taken Rs. 3,000/-, as per Schedule-II the extent of contribution could be taken as 2/3rd to the family which will make it Rs. 2,000/- per month and annual dependence will be Rs. 24,000/-. If multiplier of 17 were to be adopted as provided under Schedule-II the F.A.O.NO. 2947 of 2001 and F.A.O.No. 3533 of 2001 -3- amount of compensation that still become payable will be Rs. 4,08,000/-. If an additional amount of Rs. 2,500/- were to be added for loss to estate, funeral expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 4,500/- towards medical expenses, then the total amount that would become payable would be Rs. 4,17,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,84,000/- as compensation. The amount in excess shall bear interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the payment. 3. Learned counsel would also urge that the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest and it should have awarded 12% per annum. There has been no uniform standard laid down by courts, it was previously 12% per annum which was reduced to 9% in some cases and still later commencing from the decision in Khaushnama Begum vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.(2001) 1 SCC 155, the rate of interest was even still reduced. The Tribunal has awarded 9% and I cannot find fault with the same. The cross appeal is allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 28th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik