IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2867 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision:21.01.2011 Santosh Bhagat and another ....Appellants versus Gulab Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana, for respondents 2 and 3. None for respondents 1, 4 and 5. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of a Chartered Accountant, who was also said to be working as Chief Executive Officer in a private Company i.e. M/s Bhiwani Synthetics Limited, Bhiwani. In the claim petition, it was also stated that the deceased was also a Consultant in M/s Excel Motors and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. The accident took place on 25.07.1994 and in support of the contention about the income tax, IT returns for the previous year ending 31.03.1994 was filed that showed an income of Rs.1,98,000/- for 11 months. The Tribunal took this to be the basis for determining the income. The counsel for the appellants points out that his appointment on a new assignment was on 01.05.1993 and the salary FAO No.2867 of 1996 (O&M) - 2 - had been shown only for 11 months, but he continued in employment till he died. There was a letter produced at the trial under Ex.P7, dated 20.06.1994 that showed the enhancement of the salary to Rs.25,200/-. The proof of the contents of letter could be secured from the TDS challans produced that showed a payment of tax at Rs.5,000/- for April, May and June treating the income to be Rs.25,200/-. Therefore, the computation of income from his employment in M/s Bhiwani Synthetics could not have been made for a rate less than Rs.25,200/- per month. As regards the contention that he was also a Consultant in M/s Excel Motors, the Accountant from the said Company was examined as PW3, who produced documents P12 to P17, which were the ledger and cash book to say that Rs.8,000/- was being paid per month as consultancy charges. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that M/s Excel Motors had not advertised for the post of Consultant and that the dispatch register showing the payment did not refer to the dispatches alleged to have been made to the deceased. I cannot take this cross-examination to completely discount the finding of evidence brought through PW3/12 to PW3/17 and the oral evidence tendered by the witness PW3. The receipt of Rs.8,000/- per month was reflected also in the IT returns and, therefore, I will not have cause for suspicion that he was not engaged as a Consultant and that he was not being paid the said sum. I would, therefore, take the total income to be Rs.33,200/- and having regard to the fact that he was a high bracket of income, I will make a deduction of 20% as going towards tax and find the component of tax at Rs.6,640/-. I will take the income tax to be Rs.26,560/- per month. FAO No.2867 of 1996 (O&M) - 3 - 2. The claimants were the wife, two sons and parents and it was appeared that one son died during the pendency of proceedings and the parents themselves had not joined any petition and they were not shown to be the dependents. I would make the conventional deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses and take the contribution to the family as the remaining 2/3rd and take the annual dependency at Rs.2,12,479/-. He was said to be 48 years of age and I would adopt a multiplier of 13 in the manner suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another- 2009 ACJ 1298 and take the loss of dependency at Rs.27,62,227/-. I will provide for loss of consortium to the wife at Rs.5,000/- and having regard to the fact that he was a high income earning person, I would provide for a loss to estate at Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses at a further sum of Rs.5,000/-. The total amount of compensation shall come to Rs.27,87,227/-. The amount in excess over what has been determined by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 3. The increase in compensation shall be distributed only amongst the appellants, who are the claimants. The liability amongst respondents shall be in the same manner as determined already by the Tribunal. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 21.01.2011 sanjeev