IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.9-CII of 1999 in/and FAO No.2024 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:16.09.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Prem Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Advocate, and Mr. Hitesh Malik, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 7. Mr. B.R.Rana, Advocate, for Mr. R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate, for respondents 8 and 9. ---- 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. (Oral) 1. The only ground, that is urged in appeal, is that the quantum of compensation, awarded for the death of a passenger in the insured's vehicle, is excessive. This is not one of the permissible grounds of defence available under Section 149(2) and the appeal itself is not maintainable in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Nicolletta Rohtagi and others-(2002-3) 132 PLR 621. The appeal is dismissed. Cross Objection No.9-CII of 1999 in/and FAO No.2024 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - 2. There is a claim for enhancement by the claimants and the contention is that the person that died was a driver, who was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and the evidence was brought through the employer himself. The Tribunal took the salary to be Rs.3,000/- provided for a deduction of Rs.1,000/- and took the contribution as Rs.2,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 17. The learned counsel refers to a decision in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another-2009 ACJ 1298 and states that the deceased had four minor children, his wife and elderly parents and, therefore, the deduction must have been 1/5th only and not 1/3rd. If the formula advocated in Sarla Verma were to be accepted, I would provide for a deduction of Rs.600/- being the personal expenses and take the monthly contribution to be Rs.2,400/-. The appropriate multiplier would be 16 and not 17 as per the decision in Sarla Verma. The amount of compensation will be Rs.4,60,800/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses which I shall retain. It has provided for Rs.1,000/- as transportation which I shall also retain as such. It has granted Rs.5,000/- to the wife as loss of consortium which is already appropriate and I would provide for another Rs.2,500/- for each child towards love and affection considering the fact that the case involved an accident of the year 1995, I will add another Rs.2,500/- towards loss to estate and the amount on the whole shall worked out to Rs.4,78,800/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.4,16,000/- and the amount now determined as in excess shall bear interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of the payment. Cross Objection No.9-CII of 1999 in/and FAO No.2024 of 1998 (O&M) - 3 - 3. The amount that is now enhanced shall be shared only between the minor children and the widow. Since the accident had taken place more than 15 years back, no portion of the amount need be detained and the whole amount may be ordered to be released in favour of the claimants, provided however if anyone amongst the claimants is still a minor, the minor's share shall be retained in a deposit in a nationalized back till attaining majority and the same be paid to the person on attaining majority. The cross appeal is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 16.09.2010 sanjeev