FAO No.5544 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5544 of 2009 Date of Decision. 16.08.2010 United India Insurance Company Ltd., having its Regional Office at Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Deputy Manager ......Appellant Versus Smt. Gulzar Kaur W/o Jagjit Singh aged 49 years, resident of village Khizzar P.O. Bhadson, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondents No.3 and 4. 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 on the question of quantum, having taken the benefit of all defences under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimants were the parents and the deceased was a graduate aged 25 years. It was in evidence that the deceased was doing a post-graduate course and he was taking tuition and earning Rs.4,000/-. The Tribunal provided for a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses and adopted a multiplier of 13, having due regard to the age of the parents and prospect of marriage and the fall in contribution to the parents. FAO No.5544 of 2009 -2- 2. The learned counsel also points out that there is also an error in the calculation which has been made by the Tribunal, for even if the amount of dependence as determined by the Tribunal must be taken, the whole amount would have added up only Rs.4,16,052/- and it could not have been Rs.4,50,000/-. 3. If yet another formula were to be adopted in the matter of determination of compensation for claims arising out of death of persons, a certain proximation has to be made but now, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has shown the way in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009(6) SCC 121. The suggested formula is that in the case of a bachelor, it should be taken that the contribution would have been only 50% and not 1/3rd. The choice of multiplier would then be relating to the age of the deceased himself and not with reference to the age of the claimants as some of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have indicated. This new dispensation is to ensure a homogenity in approach in all Courts and to prevent dis-similar awards from various Courts. Schedule II itself provides for a formula that does not make any distinction between the death of a bacheor or a person, who is married. The whole scheme of compenstaion under Schedule II will have as relevant only the criteria of the age and income. In this case, therefore, I would adopt the formula as has been suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and if Rs.4,000/- is to be taken as the monthly income and 50% is to be deducted, the annual dependence would have been Rs.24,000/- and for a person aged 25, if a multiplier of 17 were to be taken, the amount of compensation that will become payable FAO No.5544 of 2009 -3- would be Rs.4,08,000/-. If the conventional heads of claim relating to the loss of love and affection for the son, funeral expenses and the loss to estate were to be taken, they would add to another Rs.10,000/-, which will make it Rs.4,18,000/-. If Rs.15,000/- more were to be taken as medical expenses as awarded by the Tribunal, in all the compensation payable would be Rs.4,33,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,56,000/- and I do not propose to make any modification with reference to the award, for there is a very little difference between the amount payable now and what was already awarded by the Tribunal. 4. I maintain the award and dismiss the appeal. The amount which is deposited by the insurance company may be released in favour of the claimants and for the balance of amount, the claimants will have process before the Tribunal. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 16, 2010 Pankaj* FAO No.5544 of 2009 -4-