Amarjit Kaur And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 May, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amarjit Kaur And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 May, 2013

Bench: K. Kannan

FAO No. 1489 of 1993                                   1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

                                    FAO No. 1489 of 1993
                                    Date of decision May 9, 2013

Amarjit Kaur and others
                                              ......   Appellants

                              Vs.

State of Haryana and others
                                              ........ Respondents

CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

Present:-        Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate
                 for the appellant.

                 Mr. Kartar Singh, DAG., Haryana.

                       ****

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).

CM No.9862-CII of 2013 The application is allowed. The case is taken up for hearing today with the consent of both the parties. FAO No.1489 of 1993

1. The appeal relates to a claim for enhancement of compensation for death of a male aged 28 years. He was a carpenter who was said to be earning `2,200/- per month. The Court provided for a deduction of 1/3rd applied multiplier of 16 and assessed the compensation at `2,60,000/-.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks for modification of the compensation in the light of the decision of the FAO No. 1489 of 1993 2 Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121 providing for prospect of increase and also increasing the claim for loss of consortium etc.

3. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar and others Vs. Rajbir Singh in Civil Appeal No.3860 of 2013 decided on 12.4.2013 the Supreme Court has observed that the prospect of increase must also be given for self employed persons. It should therefore settled that he was 28 years of age and the stated income was `2,200/- I will apply the prospect of increase at 50% and take the average salary at `3,150/- and make a deduction of 1/4th and take contribution to the family at `2,362.50 applying the multiplier of 17 the loss of dependency must be taken as `4,81,950/-. In Rajesh Kumar's case (supra) the Court has also provided for loss of consortium at `1 lac and loss of care and guidance at another `1 lac. Both sums are also added. I will provide for conventional heads of claim for loss to estate and funeral expenses an amount of another `5,000/-. The over all compensation shall be `6,86,950/-. The increase in compensation shall be divided equally amongst the widow, children and parents in the ratio of 2:2:2:1:1. Since the component of enhancement substantially is on the new parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned case, I will provide for interest for the enhanced portion of compensation at 4% per annum considering the fact that the case related to a claim in the year 1992 and the interest for over 21 years cannot be taken at the usual rate for the new component of damages at the higher rates as specified by the Supreme Court. FAO No. 1489 of 1993 3

4. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 9, 2013 archana

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court