Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Kamla Bhanot Wife Of Sh. R.C. Bhanot ... vs Sh. Anand Parkash Son Of Sh. Jit Giri Son ... on 15 March, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.537 of 1995 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.537 of 1995
Date of Decision.15.03.2013
Smt. Kamla Bhanot wife of Sh. R.C. Bhanot nd others ....Appellants
Versus
Sh. Anand Parkash son of Sh. Jit Giri son of Bhulran Giri and others
.......Respondents
Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate
for the insurance company.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
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 for death of a male aged 46 years, who was a Bank Manager. The accident occurred by a collision of the car in which the deceased was travelling with a truck. The car owner as well as the truck owner and the respective insurers were made parties. The Tribunal found both the vehicles responsible for the accident and made an equal apportionment of responsibility to bear the compensation awarded to the representatives of the deceased.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would argue that the Tribunal has not appropriately considered the issue of deduction to be applied and the multiplier applicable and seeks for FAO No.537 of 1995 -2- redetermination in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121. The deceased has left behind a widow and three children and therefore, deduction that would have been applicable must have been 1/4th for personal expenses. He was a Bank Manager, who had a prospect of increase in salary and the salary was said to have been ` 8834.67. He had also been assessed to tax during the relevant period. There was therefore prospect of increase in salary and providing for a 30% increase, the salary would have been ` 11,485/- and if 10% deduction must be provided on uniform basis as going towards tax, I would take the net income to be ` 10336/-. I would make a deduction of 1/4th, apply a multiplier of 13 and take the loss of dependency at ` 12,09,312/-. To this must be added notional heads of claim namely of the loss of consortium to wife to be assessed at ` 5,000/- and loss of love and affection to the children at ` 10,000/- besides loss of funeral expenses and loss to estate aggregated to ` 10,000/-. The total compensation payable would be ` 12,34,312/-. The amount in excess of what has been awarded already will attract interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be apportioned in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal and the extent of entitlement amongst the claimants shall also remain same as determined by the Tribunal.
3. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 15, 2013 Pankaj*