IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.910 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision:05.10.2010 II. FAO No.911 of 1995 (O&M) Vinesh Bhatia ....Appellant versus Gur Tehal Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Navin Kapur, Advocate, for the Oriental Insurance Company. ---- 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 enhancement of compensation for death of the wife comes through claim of her husband. The wife was reported to be working as a teacher in DAV, Senior Public School. Before the Tribunal, evidence was given through a Clerk of the school to say that she was being paid Rs.2,114/- per month and after deduction, she was being paid Rs.1,903/-. The Tribunal did not give value to the same taking the job to be merely temporary and taking the value of the household services to be at Rs.1,000/- and provided for compensation by FAO No.910 of 1995 (O&M) - 2 - adopting a multiplier of 16. Both as regards the multiplicand and the multiplier, the claimant has serious grievances. He also would contend that the Tribunal has not provided for conventional heads of claim including loss of consortium. 2. Learned counsel for the insurer maintains that the Tribunal was correct in its approach of not taking any income towards her services as a teacher for the evidence was that her services were extended only upto the period of the vacation and at the relevant time of death, she was not employed. I am not prepared to accept such a contention for it is not uncommon that persons, who are on temporary employment in schools get periodical extension in their services and would suffer a break during the vacation and would be re-employed after the school reopened. There was also such such an evidence elicited through the petitioner as witness. 3. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the husband was not dependent on the wife and, therefore, compensation ought not to be provided, taking 2/3rd as contribution. In my view, such a contention is wholly without merit. The amounts as compensation are not awarded only for dependence. It is but one of the factors. Earnings of a wife go to augment the resources of the family and increase the sum of material happiness. It may be that the husband was earning but it must be understood in the context of a typical middle class Indian family setting where the wife's earning goes to the pool of resources for the family and by her death, there is a relative impoverishment that has to be duly factored. That is the attempt that a Tribunal does when a claim is made by anyone earning member. Again, FAO No.910 of 1995 (O&M) - 3 - it must be seen that the legal representative is an expression which is flexible to accommodate not merely claims through dependents but also through legal heirs. Husband is a legal heir and the loss of the wife if it is sought to be compensated, certain approximation is inevitable. The financial loss that is calculated to the income which the deceased had earned is the only method by which any loss can be approximated. That is the attempt which is made through this award. 4. When definite evidence had been produced to say that she was earning Rs.2,114/-, it will be wrong to completely deny this particular head of income while determining compensation, I will take the said amount as well as the value of her services to be at Rs.500/- to the common pool and take the income to be Rs.2,614/-. I shall provide for a deduction of 1/3rd and take the contribution to the family as Rs.1,992/-. The yearly dependency would be Rs.20,911/-. If I adopt a multiplier of 17, the amount that will become payable would be Rs.3,55,487/-. I will add Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and provide for an additional Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss to estate. In all, the total amount rounded off to the nearest hundred would be Rs.3,65,500/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,92,000/-. The amount in excess shall bear interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 5. In FAO No.911 of 1995, the claim is for enhancement of compensation for death of child who was 5 years old. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-. There have been no uniformity in the method of compensating death of children. It has ranged between Rs.5,00,000/- FAO No.910 of 1995 (O&M) - 4 - awarded in M.S.Grewal Versus Deep Chand Sood-(2001)8 SCC 151; Rs.3,40,000/- in Lata Wadhwa Versus State of Bihar-(2001) 8 SCC 197 and Rs.2,00,000/- suggested in Priya Vasant Kalgutkar Versus Murad Shaikh and others-2010 AIR (SC) 40. In Grewal's case, the children belonged to the upper strata society and were studying in public school and the Hon'ble Supreme Court thought, Rs.5 lakhs would be appropriate. In Lata Wadhwa's case, the children had prospect of employment in TISCO that made possible for determining a compensation of Rs.3,40,000/-. In Priya Vasant Kalgutkar's case which was a case of an injured child and the Court while setting out the law said that it could be Rs.2 lakhs for children. If the case had been settled in the year 1995 itself, probably a different dispensation could have been there. I will now take the appropriate compensation payable would be Rs.2 lakhs in full and final settlement of claim if the amount were to be deposited by the Insurance Company within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. If it is not done so by the Insurance Company, the amount determined by the Court will attract interest at 9% from this date till date of payment. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.10.2010 sanjeev