FAO No.3548 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Case No: FAO No.3548 of 2005 Date of Decision: September 7, 2010 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant VERSUS Smt.Suman Gupta w/o Madan Mohan Gupta and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Manmohan, Advocate for the claimant ***** K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The issue for consideration before this Court is the quantum of compensation that is payable for the death arising out of a motor accident. The fact of accident and the negligence aspects were treated as true and the arguments veered around only to the assessment of the quantum. The deceased was Senior System Executive in the Haryana Education Board. The salary of the deceased was Rs. 17,733/-. The claimants were the widow or deceased and her minor son, besides the aged parents of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.17,60,100/-. This amount was challenged as being excessive and the claimants have come by means of cross-appeals seeking enhancement. Issue of compensation has obtained certitude through decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. 2009 (6) SCC 121 case. It has been observed that if a person aged 39 years who was in a garment shop as Security Guard, then there has to be a provision for future increase in salary, which the Hon'ble Supreme Court suggested would be 50% in addition to the amount earned by him at the time of accident. FAO No.3548 of 2005 -2- 2. The Income Tax was also to be deducted for taking the appropriate multiplicand for Rs.17,733/-. If 50% were to be added to 17,733/- and tax has to be deducted, the monthly income would be taken as Rs.21,000/- and out of Rs.21,000/-, I would adopt a deduction of 1/3 and take 2/3 of the salary to be the contribution to the family. The monthly contribution to the family could be taken as Rs.14,000/- and the annual dependence could be taken as Rs.1,68,000/-. I adopt the multiplier of 15 on the amount of compensation that can be payable and comes out to be Rs.25,20,000/-. 3. Out of this amount, the parents will each be entitled to 2,50,000/- each and out of the remaining amount of Rs.20,20,000/-, the amount shall be taken equally between the widow and the son. The amount that bears to the son's share shall be retained in a nationalised bank till he attains the age of maturity of the son and interest accruals shall be paid to the mother toward the expenses for the child for his maintenance quarterly. On attaining the majority, 75% of the amount may be released for higher education and the remaining amount shall still be kept in a nationalised bank in deposit for the further time of 5 years and it shall be kept in 5 moieties of one lakh. The moiety will be kept as 1 lakh for one year, the next 1 lakh for 2 years, the next 3 lakh for 3 years and so on up to 5 years. The amount will be paid after maturity on the respective years. As regards the compensation payable to the widow, having regard to the fact, the accident had taken place in the year 2004 and nearly 6 years have taken place, widow will be entitled to 40% of the amount and considering the fact that I have adopted a multiplier of 15 , to spread out the return for the said period, the remaining 60% of the amount shall be kept in a deposit for further period of 9 years to kept in equal moities, the first moity for a year, the second moity for two years and so on the period FAO No.3548 of 2005 -3- upto 9 years. The amounts shall be paid to the widow on completion of the respective years of maturity of the deposit periods. The appeal is dismissed. The cross appeal is allowed September 7, 2010 (K.KANNAN) G.Arora JUDGE