Case: Hardeo Kaur and others Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and another

the High Court for enhancement of compensation but the same was dismissed on March 2, 1988. Hence this appeal by the widow and her minor children. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the courts below have grossly eared in reaching a finding that late Major Dalip Singh being an army officer used to spend one half of his salary on personal expenditure. According to him the finding is based on mere surmises and conjectures. According to him the finding is bases on mere surmises and conjectures. He has stated that it was specifically pleaded before the Tribunal that major Dalip Singh used to spend nearly 1400 per month on his family which was solely dependent upon him. The learned counsel has also argued that there was no basis to take the life span of an army officer to be 56 years. According to his the life span should be taken to be 70 years in the modern environments. The learned counsel has contended that the deduction of 1/3rd out of the assessed compensation on account of lump sum payment is wholly unjustified. He further contended that the compensation awarded to the minor children is on the lower side and no compensation was awarded for loss of consortium to wife and the minor children. 5. We see considerable force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. There was no basis or justification before the Tribunal to have reached the finding that Major Dalip Singh was spending half of the salary on himself. On the other hand it was specifically claimed by the appellants that he was spending nearly Rs. 1400 per month to support his family. It is common knowledge that personal needs of army officers including drinks are supplied to them at a subsidised price through the Army canteens. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the courts below and hold that late Major Dalip Singh was spending Rs. 1400 per month on his family. 6. This Court Jyotsna Dey v. State of Assam 1987 ACJ 172 ) has observed that the span of life should be taken to be 70 years in view of the high rise in life expectancy. It is specially so in the case of Army offices who are disciplined to live an active and energetic life. The courts below were not justified in taking the normal span of life to beg 60 years and that of an Army officer 56 years. 7. We are of the view that deduction of 1/3rd out of the assessed compensation on account of lump sum payment is not justified. The accident took place in July, 1977 and the litigation has come to an end, hopefully, today, 15 years thereafter. This Court in Moor Owners Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi ( 1981 (4) SCC 660 : 1982 SCC(Cri) 28 : 1981 ACJ 507 ) held that the delay in the final disposal moor accident compensation cases, as in all other classes, as in all other classes of litigation, takes a sting out of the laws of compensation and added to that the monstrous inflation and the consequent fall in the value of rupee makes the compensation demanded years ago, less than quarter of its value when it is received after such a long time. In Manjushri Raha v. B. L. Gupta ( 1977 (2) SCC 174 : 1977 ACJ 507) this Court awarded compensation by multiplying the life expectancy without making any deductions. With the value of rupee dwindling due to high rate of inflation, there is no justification for making deduction due to lump sum payment. We, therefore, hold that the courts below were not justified in making lump-sum deduction in this case. 8. This Court in Concord of India Insurances Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi ( 1979 (4) SCC 365 : 1979 SCC(Cri) 996 : 1980 ACJ 55 ) held as under. "The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life in free contrary in generous scales." 9. The Tribunal became oblivious of the fact that there is timebound consideration for promotion in the Army. Apart from that there have been upward revisions in the pay-scales of Army personnel. No compensation was awarded for the loss of consortium to the wife and children. Even the life expectancy was taken to be as low as 56. Considering all these circumstances we are of the view that a multiplier of 24 would meet the ends of justice. 10. Thus the annual amount which Major Dalip Singh was spending for his family comes to Rs. 16, 800 (Rs. 1400 x 12) which multiplied by 24 comes Rs. 4, 03, 200. We, therefore, assess the amount of damages to be allowed to the appellant to the appellant-claimants at Rs. 4, 03, 200. 11. We agree with the tribunal that the injuries on the person of Hardeo Kaur were not such as to entitle her to claim compensation. The compensation awarded to the young boys, according to us, is on the lower side. We assess Rs. 10, 000 in the case of Jasminder Singh and Rs. 5000 in the case of Balvinder Singh. 12. The tribunal has awarded interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application before the tribunal till the date of realisation. In Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation ( 1986 (4) SCC 503 : 1986 SCC(Cri) 533 : 1985 ACJ 645 ) this Court awarded interest @ 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application. Similarly in Jagbir Singh v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways ( 1986 (4) SCC 431 ; 1986 SCC(Cri) 495 : 1987 ACJ 15 ) this Court enhanced the interest from 6 per cent per annum to 12 per cent per annum. We, therefore, hold that apart from the damages the appellants are entitled to claim interest @ 12 per cent per annum instead of 6 per cent awarded by the tribunal.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]5. We see considerable force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. There was no basis or justification before the Tribunal to have reached the finding that Major Dalip Singh was spending half of the salary on himself. On the other hand it was specifically claimed by the appellants that he was spending nearly Rs. 1400 per month to support his family. It is common knowledge that personal needs of army officers including drinks are supplied to them at a subsidised price through the Army canteens. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the courts below and hold that late Major Dalip Singh was spending Rs. 1400 per month on his family7. We are of the view that deduction of 1/3rd out of the assessed compensation on account of lump sum payment is not justified. The accident took place in July, 1977 and the litigation has come to an end, hopefully, today, 15 years thereafter9. The Tribunal became oblivious of the fact that there is timebound consideration for promotion in the Army. Apart from that there have been upward revisions in the pay-scales of Army personnel. No compensation was awarded for the loss of consortium to the wife and children. Even the life expectancy was taken to be as low as 56. Considering all these circumstances we are of the view that a multiplier of 24 would meet the ends of justice10. Thus the annual amount which Major Dalip Singh was spending for his family comes to Rs. 16, 800 (Rs. 1400 x 12) which multiplied by 24 comes Rs. 4, 03, 200. We, therefore, assess the amount of damages to be allowed to the appellant to the appellant-claimants at Rs. 4, 03, 20011. We agree with the tribunal that the injuries on the person of Hardeo Kaur were not such as to entitle her to claim compensation. The compensation awarded to the young boys, according to us, is on the lower side. We assess Rs. 10, 000 in the case of Jasminder Singh and Rs. 5000 in the case of Balvinder Singh12. The tribunal has awarded interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application before the tribunal till the date of realisation. In Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation ( 1986 (4) SCC 503 : 1986 SCC(Cri) 533 : 1985 ACJ 645 ) this Court awarded interest @ 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application. Similarly in Jagbir Singh v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways ( 1986 (4) SCC 431 ; 1986 SCC(Cri) 495 : 1987 ACJ 15 ) this Court enhanced the interest from 6 per cent per annum to 12 per cent per annum. We, therefore, hold that apart from the damages the appellants are entitled to claim interest @ 12 per cent per annum instead of 6 per cent awarded by the tribunal