IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.38-CII of 2009 in/and FAO No.1924 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:14.07.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Paramjit Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. V. Ramaswaroop, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, and Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate, for the objectors-respondents 1 to 4. None for respondents 5 to 7. ---- 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 appeal is by the Insurance Company on the issue of quantum, having secured permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to defend on all grounds. 2. The argument in appeal by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer is that the Tribunal has not taken note of the statement of the employer after the deductions setting out the details of the income produced before the Tribunal but discarded the same and had taken the gross salary for determining the compensation. In defence, the counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants would contend that the Cross Objection No.38-CII of 2009 in/and FAO No.1924 of 2008 (O&M) - 2 - amount determined was not even adequate and he has sought for enhancement of compensation by means of a cross-appeal. According to him, the total tax which was deducted was only in the range of Rs.1,999/- per year and even the details as found in the statement given by the employer were to be taken, the Tribunal ought to have deducted only 1/4th of his earning towards personal expenses and ought not to have deducted only 1/3rd of the sum. 3. The issue relating to determination of compensation is fairly well laid out in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another- 2009 ACJ 1298. The judgment is significant, for, it has tried to reconcile several decisions of authorities relating to choice of multiplier, the method of providing for the multiplicand, the extent of deduction for personal expenses, etc. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants would point out that as a rule of thumb for a person who is in regular government service, a provision for future prospects of increased emoluments shall be provided to the tune of 30% for persons between 40 and 50. The deceased was 49 years old and, therefore, the enhancement that ought to have been provided was 30%. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer says that there was no pleading for increasing the emoluments in future and promotional prospects. Rules of pleadings, in my view, while considering claim under MV Act ought to be flexible if it had been brought out in evidence that he was a government servant and that he had still several years of service left, the Court can take judicial notice of the fact of increase of emoluments in Cross Objection No.38-CII of 2009 in/and FAO No.1924 of 2008 (O&M) - 3 - future. It is in that context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court states that a provision for increase could be made in all cases where there was security of tenure for the deceased for continuation in service. Even as regards the extent of deduction for personal expenses, literally a formula has been made in Sarla Verma's case. It has taken note of the conventional deduction of 1/3rd as provided in many cases and the unit theory propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trilok Chander's case. It has attempted to reconcile the same by providing for various types of situations and has directed that if the number of dependents are four, the deduction could be upto 1/4th. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer points out that in this case all the children were adults and, therefore, the extent of dependence could not be in the manner referred to in Sarla Verma's case as urged by the counsel for the claimants. The counsel for the claimants points out that the evidence of the widow that the deceased was the only bread winner and all the claimants were dependents on him were left unchallenged in the cross- examination. With no contra evidence available, I see no scope for reducing the extent of dependence. 1/4th deduction would have been appropriate. 4. On a reworking of the entire amount after providing for deduction of tax and taking the salary statement as given by the employer after deduction of tax as the basis and taking the deduction at 1/4th and also providing for a 30% increase, the extent of dependence would be Rs.11,296/- + 30% of the same which will be Rs.14,698/-. The annual dependence is to be reckoned by multiplying into 12 and further adopting Cross Objection No.38-CII of 2009 in/and FAO No.1924 of 2008 (O&M) - 4 - a multiplier of 13, the total amount would be Rs.14,885 x 12 x 13. If the conventional heads of claims of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- for love and affection and yet another Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate are also provided. The total amount would be Rs.23,20,860/-. The Court had already awarded Rs.17,70,000/-. The petitioner shall have an additional amount of Rs.5,50,000/-. I am of the view that the enhancement compensation which the claimant would get shall bear interest which will be payable only from the date of filing of the appeal at 6%. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent providing for additional amount of Rs.5,50,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of the award of the Tribunal till the date of payment. The appeal by the Insurance Company shall stand dismissed, however, accepting the contention that there shall be deduction for income tax but the amount awarded shall stand enhanced by admitting the claims of the claimants in the manner referred to above. 5. The appeal filed by the claimants shall be allowed partially in the manner indicated above. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 14.07.2010 sanjeev