IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.5-CII of 2006 in/and FAO No.18 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision:23.12.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Asha and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.19 of 2005 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Rajbala and others ...Respondents III. FAO No.20 of 2005 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Rani Bala and others ...Respondents IV. FAO No.21 of 2005 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Rajesh alias Kala and others ...Respondents FAO No.18 of 2005 (O&M) - 2 - V. FAO No.22 of 2005 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Anju and others ...Respondents VI. FAO No.4745 of 2004 (O&M) Rajbala and others ....Appellants versus Anil Kumar alias Rajesh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No.18 to 22 of 2005 and for respondent No.3 in FAO No.4745 of 2004. Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the respondents in FAO Nos.18 to 22 of 2005 and for the appellants in FAO No.4745 of 2004. ---- 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. 1. All the above six cases arise out of the same accident. FAO Nos.18 to 22 of 2005 are at the instance of the Insurance Company and FAO No.4745 of 2004 is at the instance of the claimants seeking for enhancement of their claim. FAO No.18 of 2005 (O&M) - 3 - 2. The accident took place on 25.08.2003 when two vehicles, namely, tempo and truck collided with each other. The Tribunal held responsible the truck driver for the accident and made the Insurance Company of that truck liable to indemnify the claimants. Before the Tribunal, in support of their contentions, petitioners examined 14 persons and in rebuttal, the respondents examined only the driver of the truck as RW1. 3. FAO No.18 of 2005 arises out of the MACT case No.1 of 08.10.2003, where the deceased person namely Anil Kumar has left behind his minor son, aged 14 months, and his old parents. He was running a tailoring shop and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. There were four persons under his employment and to them, he was reportedly paying Rs.4,500/- each. He was aged 23 years at the time of death. As per the version of PW6 (wife of the deceased), her husband (deceased) used to give Rs.8,000/- per month for household expenses. The deceased was said to have employed 4 tailors and one of them gave evidence to say that he was being paid Rs.4,500/-. The Tribunal, after making deduction of his personal expenses at 1/3rd, took the dependency at Rs.6,666/- and rounded it off to Rs.7,000/-. It adopted a multiplier of 16 to arrive a compensation at Rs.13,44,000/-. Besides the said amount, the Tribunal also provided for Rs.16,000/- under conventional head of claim, for loss of consortium and loss to estate and it added to the compensation to Rs.13,60,000/-. In the said FAO, respondents 1 to 4 have also filed cross objection No.5 of 2006 for modification of the award. As per the decision in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport FAO No.18 of 2005 (O&M) - 4 - Corporation and another-2009 ACJ 1298, the multiplier could be 18 but the multiplicand takes fairly a large sum as contribution viz. at Rs.7,000/-, taking his income to be Rs.10,000/-. He was not known to have paid income tax. I would normally be inclined to provide for a slightly lesser amount, less than the taxable limit and adopt higher a multiplier of 18. However, having regard to a relatively higher value of multiplicand, I would not make any modification and take the compensation already assessed as just. FAO No.18 of 2005 and cross objection No.5 of 2006 are consequently dismissed. 4. FAO No.19 of 2005 arises against the decision in MACT case No.2 of 08.10.2003, where the deceased Kuldip Singh has left behind his wife and his parents. He was aged 23 years at the time of accident. He was working as electrician and was getting Rs.4,000/-per month. He was also getting stipend of Rs.1,230/-. As such, he was earning Rs.5,230/- per month. He used to give Rs.4,000/- for household expenses. The Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.4,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 16 and arrived at a compensation of Rs.7,68,000/-. Under the conventional heads of claim i.e. loss of consortium and loss to estate, the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/- and awarded Rs.7,80,000/-. 5. FAO No.4745 of 2004 is at the instance of the claimants for enhancement of claim in the above said MACT case No.2 of 08.10.2003. Their contention is that the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,230/- per month, but took the dependency wrongly at Rs.4,000/- per month and not provided for increase of income in future being a technically qualified person. At the time of the accident of the deceased, FAO No.18 of 2005 (O&M) - 5 - his wife was pregnant. Loss of love and affection was also not provided and prays that multiplier of 16 was wrongly applied and taking into account the age of the deceased and the pregnancy of the wife at the time of the accident, the multiplier should have been 18. There was no basis for taking the income at Rs.5,230/-. He was actually only being paid a stipend of Rs.1,230/- and their was no way of surely assessing an additional income of Rs.4,000/-. The Tribunal, however, took the extent of dependency itself at Rs.48,000/- per annum. Though the choice of multiplier could have been 18, the multiplicand was higher than what the evidence justified. Taking an overall view, the determination of compensation of Rs.7,68,000/- was just and would call for no interference. 6. FAO No.20 of 2005 arises against the decision in MACT case No.4 of 24.02.2001, where the deceased namely Rajesh has left behind his wife, two minor children and widow mother. At the time of the accident, he was aged 30 years as per PMR. He had done diploma in Pharmacy. He was MR (Medical Representative) of Bandhu Medicos and earning Rs.6,000/-. Besides this, he was earning Rs.4,000/- from dairy and agricultural work. He used to give Rs.5,000/- for household expenses. The Tribunal took the contribution of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month, applied a multiplier of 15 and determined a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. Under the conventional heads of claim i.e. loss of consortium and loss to estate, Rs.16,000/- were awarded. The total amount awarded by the Tribunal comes to Rs.9,16,000/-. This amount is also just for the same line of reasoning as adopted for the two FAO No.18 of 2005 (O&M) - 6 - earlier cases. All the above three appeals are dismissed. 7. FAO No.21 of 2005 arises out of the claim in MACT case No.20 of 17.11.2003, where the person namely Rajesh, has received multiple injuries i.e. fracture of scapula, ribs and pelvis as a result of the accident. He was driver and was earning Rs.3,000/-. He remained admitted in the hospital from 25.08.2003 to 31.08.2003. Dr. Pankaj (PW10) examined him, who spoke with reference to his injuries. Due to the injuries received by him, he could not drive for six months. The Tribunal assessed the loss of his income at Rs.18,000/- ; Rs.7,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- for medical expenses, transportation charges, special diet and attendant charges. The total amount awarded by the Tribunal comes to Rs.45,000/-. I would increase the component of pain and suffering at a further sum of Rs.15,000/- and for the increased amount award interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. 8. FAO No.22 of 2005 arises out of the claim in MACT case No.23 of 27.11.2003, where the deceased Karambir has left behind his wife and parents. At the time of the accident, he was aged 25 years. He remained admitted in hospital from 25.08.2003 to 01.09.2003. He produced medical bills through exhibits P42 to P50 to the tune of Rs.1960/-. The Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.4,500/- and applied 1/3rd to his personal expenses and took his contribution to the family at Rs.3,000/-, the yearly dependency of which comes to Rs.36,000/-. It adopted a multiplier of 16 and arrived at a compensation of Rs.5,76,000/-. Under the conventional heads of claim i.e. loss of FAO No.18 of 2005 (O&M) - 7 - consortium and loss to estate, Rs.12,000/- were awarded by the Tribunal and another Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses to make a total compensation of Rs.5,93,000/-. This amount is also maintained as just and the appeal shall be dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 23.12.2010 sanjeev