FAO No.400 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.400 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: January 10, 2011 SMT. MAYA DEVI AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS VEER SINGH @ VEERU & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. T.C. DHANWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR. DHEERAJ, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2. MR. ASHWANI TALWAR, FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. 2. FAO No.4146 of 2008 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ...APPELLANT VERSUS SMT. MAYA DEVI AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS PRESENT: MR. ASHWANI TALWAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. MR. T.C. DHANWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 6. MR. DHEERAJ, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. Both the appeals are connected, one at the instance of the insurance company and another at the instance of the claimants seeking for enhancement. The insurance company had the benefit of Section 170 to FAO No.400 of 2009 -2- challenge the issue on quantum. 2. The deceased was a Sub-Inspector of Police and was drawing a salary of `12,112/-. The deceased was 40 years at the time of accident and the Tribunal had provided for 1/3rd deduction and awarded a compensation of `16,24,520/- with 7% interest. The contention urged on behalf of the appellant is that the claimant had stood by the benefit of a compassionate assistance of `3 lacs on the death of the deceased and therefore, the said sum, which was purely gratuitous and what was enforceable by the law since it was a payment under a compassionate scheme of deceased, said amount must also be deducted. There is a slight difference in situations where a compassionate appointment is offered to any of the representatives and there are decisions to the effect that such compassionate appointment and the salary earned by such person cannot be wholly deducted for such a salary earned by the compassionate appointee would for the service rendered and not purely gratuitous. However, the gratuitous payment which is enforceable at the instance of the representative and which arises by the only fact of death, a different consideration ought to be applied and the amount which is received as resultant to said death must be deducted. I would, therefore, undertake to examine the case in the light of the scope of decision a suggested in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported as 2009 6 SCC 121 to see whether the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is appropriate and just. 3. Since the deceased was a Government servant, there was a sure prospect of increase in salary and I would provide for 30% increase and take an average income to be `15,745/-. I would deduct 10% as the same goes towards tax and take an average salary of `14,170/-. Since the deceased FAO No.400 of 2009 -3- was to support a large family of 6 dependents, I would provide for 1/4th deduction and take the extent of loss of dependency per month at `10,628/-. I would adopt a multiplier of 15 and find that the extent of loss of dependency at `19,13,031/-. If the amount of `3 lacs received by representatives were to be deducted, the amount payable will be `16,13,031/-. Even if the conventional heads of compensation were to be added, it will stay around the amount what has already awarded been by the Tribunal. There is earlier an authority of this Court to the effect that an amount received by the representative through a benevolent fund shall be deducted in S.K. Aggarwal vs. Satya Wati Devi, 1974 Revenue Law Reporter 53. However, if any amount had come towards pension which is a nature of different wage or a return for a contribution that had been made by the deceased that shall not be deducted, for, they are not gratuitous and they shall be taken as a return for the contribution already made. I must again point out that if any ex-gratia payment had been received say, from Government from C.M.'s Benevolent Fund, no deduction would be justified. [See Harjit Kaur vs. Tochi Transport Company (1986) 2 ACC 70 (P&H)]. It is the element of right of enforcement to the representative under a published compassionate scheme, such as what happened in this instant case that makes the difference. 4. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is found to be just and appropriate and would see no scope for intervention in any way. The appeal of the insurance company will stand dismissed. The appeal by the claimants for enhancement would likewise stand to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel states that the interest awarded is only 7% and it ought to be enhanced. I see no reason for enhancement for even claim of FAO No.400 of 2009 -4- interest, for, there are even authorities that provide for only 6% interest and having regard to the enormity of the claim I do not think that there should be any modification towards interest as well. 6. The award is confirmed in all aspects. January 10, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE