Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Jaswinder Kaur And Others on 24 January, 2014
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO-5710-2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-5710-2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.01.2014
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
...Appellant
Versus
Jaswinder Kaur and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Nitin Mittal, Advocate,
for Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Ashok Bector, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company, challenging the impugned Award dated 10.03.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar.
2. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal ought to have applied split multiplier in the instant case as the deceased, aged 56 years at the time of his death in the accident, was due for retirement after two years and thus, his income would have decreased by at least 50%. Sethi Atul 2014.02.13 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO-5710-2011 -2-
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant- respondents has vehemently opposed the present appeal.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file.
5. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased was working as Technical Assistant in Punjab Agriculture Department and he would have retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation and his income in the form of pension would have definitely decreased thereafter. However, Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(6) SCC 121, has categorically held that in all cases, the choice of multiplier would strictly depend on the age of the deceased in order to bring uniformity.
6. Similar view has been taken in Sri K.R. Madhusudhan and others Vs. The Administrative Officer, 2011 STPL (Web) 146 SC, whereby Hon'ble the Supreme Court has rejected the method of adopting split multiplier. It has been observed thus:-
"15. We are, thus, of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence on record, for having not considered the future prospects of the deceased and also for adopting a split multiplier Sethi Atul 2014.02.13 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO-5710-2011 -3- method."
7. No other point has been raised.
8. In view of the above discussion, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal.
9. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.
10. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-, deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company be placed at the disposal of the Tribunal for reimbursement.
24.01.2014 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE
Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes / No. Sethi Atul 2014.02.13 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh