IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.40-CII of 2010 in/and FAO No.4049 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:10.08.2010 New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Krishan Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2. ---- 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. CM No.17546-CII of 2010 Delay of 95 days in re-filing the cross objections is condoned. FAO No.4049 of 2009 1. The Insurance Company has preferred an appeal challenging the award passed in favour of the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, on the ground that the Court had taken the income wrongly and assessed the compensation on higher scale without taking note of the fact that the deceased was a bachelor and the multiplier of 11 could not have been applied. On the issue of the multiplicand, the contention was that the income tax returns showed that he had Rs.20,000/- as his annual FAO No.4049 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - income which the Tribunal thought was a monthly income and had arrived at the compensation wrongly. A cross appeal had been filed by the claimants to point out that the Tribunal had committed an error in taking note only of one head of income in the income tax returns and completely omitting to note that the deceased had paid a tax of Rs.82,785/- and the total income reflected from the returns was he was earning Rs.4,06,720/-. 50% deduction, according to the claimants, was erroneous and the Tribunal ought to have provided for 1/3rd only. The claim is, therefore, made for enhancement of compensation. 2. I do not find anywhere stated in the grounds or any application that the insured had the benefit of defence on all grounds under Section 170 of MV Act. The choice of multiplier has an immediate bearing to the compensation payable. Insurance Company has, in my view, no right to challenge the quantum of compensation in an appeal. The appeal is not maintainable and it is dismissed as such. In any event, the question of quantum is the subject matter in a cross appeal which I shall deal with separately. 3. As regards the cross appeal, I find that the deceased was studying law and he was supposed to have been doing real estate business. He was an income tax assessee. Though the Tribunal had committed an error in assessing Rs.20,000/- as the monthly income without adverting to other heads of income alleged to have been mentioned in the income tax returns, I have not the benefit of the details. The copy of the income tax returns itself has not been filed by the respondents but going by the award and the contentions raised in the FAO No.4049 of 2009 (O&M) - 3 - cross appeal, I am of the view that the Tribunal had correctly factored the issue relating to the prospect of marriage and a fall in the contribution to the family and taken the multiplier as 11, having due regard to the age of the claimants. If the 50% of the income had been deducted as going towards personal expenses, it is again correct in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another-2009 ACJ 1298. The compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is proper and it has also provided for the conventional heads of claims such as, loss to estate, funeral expenses, etc. 4. There is no justification for interfering with the award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.08.2010 sanjeev