FAO No.621 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.621 of 2006 Date of Decision. 30.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through Sh. Sardari Lal, Assistant Manager ......Appellant Versus Davinder Singh son of Sadhu Singh and others ......Respondents 2. FAO No.622 of 2006 National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through Sh. Sardari Lal, Assistant Manager ......Appellant Versus Harjit Kaur widow of late Harminder Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 insurance company is on appeal against the award passed in two cases filed by the wife and children and independently by the parents in yet another case. The only issue that is urged before this Court is a plea regarding quantum. The request for permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act having been refused by the Tribunal, the insurance company would urge that the refusal was erroneous. I accord to the insurer the permission since FAO No.621 of 2006 -2- that has been taken as one of the grounds in appeal and I will examine the case on the aspect of quantum. 2. The deceased was a Sales Manager, aged 36 years drawing a salary of Rs.4350/-. The Tribunal took the net salary and made a deduction of 1/3rd and adopted a multiplier of 16. The learned counsel would contend that the appropriate multiplier would have been only 15 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121. I am prepared to accept this contention but if a re-appraisal were to be taken on the appropriate multiplicand then the amount of compensation that has been awarded by the Tribunal cannot be seem to be on the higher side. To illustrate, if Rs.14,350/- were to be taken annual income and the amount in excess of Rs.1,50,000/- were to be applied with 30% tax, the monthly tax deductible would be in the range of Rs.550/-. The deceased had a wife, two children and aged parents. Since the dependents are more than four, I would take the deduction for personal expenses to be 1/4th, for that would yield to a monthly dependence of Rs.10,350/-. Even if multiplier were to be taken 15 and not 16, the amount of compensation that will become payable would be in excess of what has already been awarded by the Tribunal. I do not, therefore, find any scope for intervention in the awards passed by the Tribunal. 3. I maintain the awards the dismiss the appeal. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 30, 2010 Pankaj*