Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Rajnish vs Abhey Kumar Son Of Sh. Vikram Singh on 10 September, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.6162 of 2010(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.6162 of 2010(O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.09.2012
Smt. Rajnish, widow of Satpal, resident of 194, B-Block, Gali
No.5, Sheetla Colony, Gurgaon and others.
... Appellants
Versus
Abhey Kumar son of Sh. Vikram Singh, resident of village
Jiwana, P.S. Mansourpur, District Mujafarnagar, Uttar Pradesh
and another.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate,
for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
*****
1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? NO
2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest? NO
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation assessed for death of a person aged 32 years. The claimants were wife and two minor children. He brought before the Tribunal evidence for the fact that his basic salary was `7,200/- for the month of June, which was increased from `6,300/- per month that was being paid to him for the previous month of May, 2009. He was shown to have HRA of `3,000/-, `1,428/- as conveyance and `525/- as medical expenses. I would take the House Rent Allowance as admissible, but a provision for conveyance could be only for actual expenses FAO No.6162 of 2010(O&M) [2] incurred and hence inadmissible for computation. I would, therefore, take the income at `10,200/- per month. The Tribunal took the income at `6,300/- per month, took the contribution to the family at `4,200/- per month and applied a multiplier of 9 for determination of compensation. The respondents have been served but there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents.
2. The assessment of compensation is against all the norms established by several decisions of the Supreme Court including the decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009(6) SCC 12. Having regard that he was aged 32 years, I would make a prospect of increase by another 50% and take the income to be `15,300/- per month. I would apply a deduction of 1/3rd and take the contribution to the family at `10,200/- per month. Since the deceased was aged 32 years, I will adopt a multiplier of 16 and the loss of dependency will be `19,58,400/-. The Tribunal has allowed for `10,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses and `10,000/- towards loss of consortium. I will retain the same. The total compensation will be `19,78,400/-. The Tribunal has awarded `4,73,600/-. The amount in excess what has been awarded by the Tribunal will also attract interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.
3. The accident has taken place in the year 2009. The compensation assessed shall be distributed equally. Out of FAO No.6162 of 2010(O&M) [3] share of the mother 30% of the same shall be paid forthwith and the remaining 70% will be placed in fixed deposits for a period of 13 years split in 13 equal shares, the first of the portion for one year, second portion for two years and so on till the completion of 13 years. The amounts shall be paid to the 1st petitioner on maturity at the end of each year directly to the party after informing the details of deposit. As regards the share payable to the minor children, the same shall be retained with the bank in appropriate fixed deposits for the entire period of minority and on attaining majority, they shall be paid 75% of the corpus. The interest for deposits will be paid to the 1st petitioner/mother as a guardian quarterly. The 25% of the amount on the respective dates of majority shall be kept in fixed deposits for further period of 3 years split in equal amounts, the first deposit for 1 year, the 2nd deposit for 2 years and so on and each deposit shall be paid in full to the appellants 2 and 3 on the dates of maturity. These directions are subject to any other contingency that may arise for immediate payment which may be secured by approaching the trial Court itself.
4. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed on the above terms.
10th September, 2012 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE