FAO No.966 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.966 of 1995 Date of Decision. 24.12.2010 Smt. Rashmi Sobti wd/o late Sh. Sharad Sobti and others ......Appellants Versus Manjit Singh son of Sh. Bhagwan Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the insurance company. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. 1. The appeal is at the instance of claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation for the death of the 1st claimant's husband. The deceased was said to be an Architect and engaged in the business of construction and the Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.4,73,000/- for the widow, two minor children and mother of the deceased. The appeal stands for consideration only as regards the quantum and negligence, the liability of the insurance company being an admitted fact. 2. In the manner of ascertainment of compensation, the Tribunal had taken the average monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-, provided for a deduction of Rs.2,000/- per month for his FAO No.966 of 1995 -2- own personal expenses and adopted a multiplier of 13. It added funeral expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and determined the compensation as aforesaid. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that there had been an elaborate evidence placed through a Chartered Accountant, who had spoken about the fact that the deceased was a proprietor of a firm called M/s Distinction India and that he used to take works contract and the accounts showed that he had been consistently paying income tax and assessed to income in the range of Rs.96,000/- to start with later in the year 1989, he had been assessed to an income of Rs.1,20,457, in the year 1990, the total income of the firm was Rs.1,73,780/- and for the year 1991-92, the total income of the firm was Rs.1,04,742/- and for the year ending with 31.3.1992, the total income of the firm was Rs.1,15,763. While giving out the income from the firm, the evidence also was that the firm had availed of substantial depreciation, which in the course of the cross-examination, he explained that the depreciation was towards machineries and other equipments, which the construction company was using. Learned counsel would contend that the deduction towards depreciation ought not to have been taken note of and the Tribunal must have taken the actual income minus tax as the relevant factor for determining the compensation. I would accede partially to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants that a deduction towards depreciation was invariably a facility for determining the taxable income and the income that is actually available to an income earner cannot be taken after deducting the depreciation. The only deduction, FAO No.966 of 1995 -3- which will be possible in such type of situations would be the total income minus the tax. From the consideration of the evidence let in, I find that the substantial depreciation has been taken for electric fitting, typewriter, fire fighting equipments etc. and if the total income must be taken and deduction for tax were to be made, I would average the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/-. Out of this, I would provide for 1/4th deduction, having regard to the fact that the deceased was supporting a family of his wife, two minor children and his mother. The wife herself was a manager in a bank and Tribunal, however, observed that although the wife could not have been financially dependent on her husband, the loss of her husband would evidently reduce the total income available to the family for expenditure and for the accumulation of the value of the estate. I would, therefore, accord 1/4th deduction for the personal expenses of the deceased and take the contribution to the family for the year Rs.75,000/-. The Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 13 instead of that I would adopt a multiplier of 15 as suggested by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 1. The Tribunal has provided for Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses which I will retain. I will also add Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the wife and Rs.2500/- to each one of the minor children by that time. In all, for the loss of consortium and for the loss of love and affection, I would provide for Rs.10,000/- and also provide for an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss to estate. The total amount of compensation will be as under:- FAO No.966 of 1995 -4- FATAL ACCIDENTS Age 38 years Occupation Architect/Business Claimants Widow, 2 minors and mother Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Sl. No. Amount (Rs) Amount (Rs.) 1 Income 1,15,763 2 Add, % of increase 30% / 50% 3 Average monthly income x 12 60000 1,00,000 4 Deduction (1/2 , 1/3, 1/4, 1/5) 24000 1/4th 5 Multiplicand 36000 75000 6 Multiplier 13 15 7 Loss of dependence 4,68,000 11,25,000 8 Medical Expenses & Transportation -- 9 Loss of Consortium & love and affection 10000 10 Loss to estate 11 Funeral expenses 5000 5000 5000 Total 4,73,000 10,45,000 4. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @ 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 24, 2010 Pankaj*