F.A.O.NO. 4694 OF 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 4694 OF 2009 Date of decision:25th October, 2010 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Babu Lal and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Gulshan Mehta, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 8. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is by the Insurance Company on the issue of quantum, the insurance company having had the benefit of defence under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The deceased was a B.Com final year student and aged 28 years. The evidence was led through three persons, all of them claiming that the deceased was working part time as accountant. PW-2 Banwari Lal had deposed that the deceased was working part time as accountant in Lakhiwal Engineering Works, Industrial Area, F.A.O.NO. 4694 OF 2009 2 Hisar and he was paying Rs. 3,000/- per month to him. PW-9 Rias Khan, stated that the deceased was working part time as an accountant at Alfa Engineering Hisar. One Daya Nand gave evidence that he was working as an accountant at Jhabar Engineering Works Shiv Colony, Hisar to show that an accountant had received Rs. 12,000/- per month. 3. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased Rs. 9,000/- per month and determined compensation by taking 1/3rd deduction towards personal contribution upto 5 years and 2/3rd for 10 years. Methods of ascertaining of award for bachelors have come through dispensation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121. The method of splitting the extent of contribution in the manner done by the Tribunal is arbitrary. In order to preserve certitude and homogeneity in approach, in my view the model suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case(supra) operates as a binding precedent. 4. It has to be noticed that the deceased was a student. Tall claims made by the claimants that the deceased was employed at various places simultaneously and earning more than Rs. 12,000/- seem difficult to accept. Even a proof that some person as an accountant was earning Rs. 12,000/- can not be a ground for taking the same as the income of the deceased. The deceased was a bright student, truly prodigious to the family from a rural back ground but there has to be a reasonable approach in the matter of assessment of the income. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would F.A.O.NO. 4694 OF 2009 3 urge that in these days even skilled labourer earns more than Rs. 3,000/- and that it should therefore, become possible for a graduate to earn around Rs. 9,000/-. If he was earning Rs. 9,000/- and there was appropriate proof, I would have no difficulty but in the anxiety to secure an award the claimants had adduced evidence which seems artificial. I would take the average income to be Rs. 3,500/- for a B.Com student, provide for 50% deduction and take the contribution to the family as Rs. 1,750/- per month. I would apply a multiplier of 18 and determine Rs. 3,78,000/- as the loss of dependence. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards last rites and consortium. There is no scope for consortium to the parents for the death of a bachelor and I would take it to be a loss of love and affection and I will provide Rs. 10,000/- as provided for by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 1,16,170/- towards medical expenses which I shall retain. In all, the total amount that will become payable would be Rs. 5,04,170/-. The amount shall be distributed in the same manner in which it has been determined by the Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 25th October, 2010 Shivani Kaushik