F.A.O.No.4765 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.4765 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision 07.10.2009 National Insurance Company Ltd. ...... Appellant VERSUS Smt.Sushila Jain and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr.Deepak Suri, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): As an aftermath of the accident, claimants-respondents No.1 and 2 (herein referred as 'the claimants') in their claim petition were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,55,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of the death of Ankur Jain, aged about 25 years in a motor vehicular accident. Challenge has been made on twin grounds viz. the wrong assessment regarding dependency as well as the multiplier. While scrutinizing the salary record Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 proved before the Tribunal, it transpires that the deceased while working as an accountant was drawing a salary of Rs.9750/- per month. He was 25 years old young man at the threshold of his service career and there was every likelihood of his income being increased with the passage of time by intermittent promotions on attaining seniority. As regards the deductions, the Apex Court observed that the necessary quantum of deductions to be F.A.O.No.4765 of 2009(O&M) 2 made from the income of the unmarried son depend upon the circumstances of each and every case. It was observed in case Fakeerappa and another vs. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and others 2004 (2) P.L.R. 210 that deduction of the personal expenses to the extent of 1/3rd could be applied in suitable cases. Here in the instant case the deceased had done Master of Commerce and was working as an accountant, drawing salary of Rs.9750/- per month. The claimants i.e. parents of the deceased were in 50s. With the increase in their age, their dependency should rather have been increased. Therefore, the deduction made by the Tribunal to the extent of 1/3rd was not inappropriate. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Bilkish versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. 2008 (2) TAC 815 (SC) observed that even if the deceased was unmarried being bachelor could not have spent more than 1/3rd of his total income towards his personal use. Even otherwise, if we delve deep into the matter, if the deceased would not have married, then also, it could not be expected from him that he would waste the money but after spending something upon himself but he would have saved the remaining amount for his parents. The amount, which he would have saved, would also have gone to the parents. As such, the parents had suffered that much pecuniary loss which the deceased would have earned from his savings also. As such while examining the case from all angles, the deduction of 1/3rd of the total income, which he would have spent upon himself, was not inappropriate. The Tribunal, keeping in view the judgment delivered in case Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay versus Shri Laxmaniyer and another 2004 (1) P.L.R. 446 applied the multiplier of 10 which I do not need to disturb. In case Municipal Corporation of F.A.O.No.4765 of 2009(O&M) 3 Greater Bombay versus Shri Laxmaniyer and another's case (supra), the Apex Court observed as under:- “Keeping in view the observations made by this Court in various cases, several other factors need to be taken note of. The deceased was unmarried. The contribution to the parents who have their separate earning being employed and educated have relevance. The possibility of reduction in contribution once a person gets married is a reality. The compensation is relatable to the loss of contribution or the pecuniary benefits. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court is certainly on the higher side. Considering the age of the claimants, it can never exceed 10 even by the most liberal standards.” Worked out on the basis of aforesaid parameters, it appears that the compensation awarded to the claimants has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal. Hence, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 07.10.2009 mamta-II