L.P.A No. 3056 of 2001 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A No. 3056 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision : August 27, 2010 Balwinder Kaur and others, ...... Appellants v. Ram Kumar and others, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge whereby compensation for the death of Balwinder Singh has been enhanced to ` 4,20,800/- as against the amount of ` 3,84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The deceased was 35 years of age and was employed in the Primary Land Mortgage Bank, Ambala City on a monthly salary of ` 3647/-. As per the claimants, he was also earning some amount from a milk dairy and from agricultural land. The Tribunal did not accept the additional L.P.A No. 3056 of 2001 (O&M) ::2:: income for want of proof. Counsel for the appellants has argued that the dependency of ` 2150/- per month determined by the learned Single Judge is inadequate. He has further argued that the Lok Adalat of this Court had worked out the dependency at ` 2740/- per month and had consequently worked out the total compensation of ` 6,36,080/-. He has stated that the reasoning of the Lok Adalat could not be found fault with. As regards the dependency, the learned Single Judge has computed the same in the following manner :- “ I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that there is some scope of enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the deceased was earning Rs.3647/- per month at the time of his death as has been highlighted in para No.15 of the award of the Tribunal. The deceased was an employee of the Land Mortgage Bank. He was supposed to remain out of the house in order to discharge his official duty. He was also supposed to maintain his appearance. Therefore, his personal expenses must be more as compared to the other members of the family. I take the personal expenses of the deceased at Rs.1500/- per month and after deducting this amount from the income of the deceased, the monthly dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.2147/- say Rs.2150/- and by applying a multiplier of 16, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.4,12,800/-, which in my opinion, is a just compensation and I order accordingly....” It would, thus, be seen that the learned Single Judge has worked out the expenses of the deceased at approximately 40%, whereas the Tribunal had computed the same at approximately 45%. In our considered opinion, while the learned Single Judge has erred in calculating the personal expenses of the deceased at almost 40%, the Lok Adalat has also erred in computing it at merely 25%. It is trite to say that no hard and fast rule can be laid down to compute the personal expenses of any person. The Hon'ble L.P.A No. 3056 of 2001 (O&M) ::3:: Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 held as follows :- “14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth(1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six.” In the present case, we find that the deceased had four dependent family members. It also needs to be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others' case (supra) had made a provision for addition to income for future prospects in the following term :- “ 10. Generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation. The question is whether actual income at the time of death should be taken as the income or whether any addition should be made by taking note of future prospects. In Susamma Thomas, this Court held that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand (annual contribution to the dependents); and that where the deceased had a stable job, the court can take note of the prospects of the future and it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the actual income of the deceased at the time of death.....” In the present case, there is no material before us which would indicate what amount was payable as income tax by the deceased. Thus, it may not be possible to add a notional amount to the total income of the deceased. In the circumstances, in our considered opinion, and on balancing all the factors mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would L.P.A No. 3056 of 2001 (O&M) ::4:: be just and proper to compute the dependency at ` 2500/- per month instead of ` 2150/- as computed by the learned Single Judge. This would mean that the annual dependency would be ` 30,000/-. The multiplier of 16 has been rightly applied. Similarly, the amounts by way of funeral, consortium charges and interest cannot be held to be unreasonable. Consequently, the total amount would workout to be ` 4,90,000/-. This appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE August 27 , 2010. ( MUKUL MUDGAL ) `kk' CHIEF JUSTICE L.P.A No. 3056 of 2001 (O&M) ::5:: L.P.A No. 3056 of 2001 (O&M) ::6:: L.P.A No. 3056 of 2001 (O&M) ::7:: L.P.A No. 3056 of 2001 (O&M) ::8:: L.P.A No. 3056 of 2001 (O&M) ::9::