Punjab-Haryana High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Sudesh Chawla And Others on 9 April, 2014
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Cross Objection No.92-CII of 2013 in/and
FAO No.2723 of 2013
Date of decision: 09.04.2014
The New India Assurance Company Limited ... Appellant
versus
Sudesh Chawla and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Rajesh K Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Harinder Kumar Aurora, Advocate,
for respondents 1 and 2/cross objectors.
Mr. K.K. Choudhry, Advocate,
for Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The appeal by the Insurance Company is on a plea that in the choice of multiplier, the Tribunal was in error by taking the age of the deceased son, who was a bachelor, as relevant when according to the claimant, the age of the claimant alone would be relevant where they are elder than the deceased. There have been cleavage of opinions on this issue by the decisions of the Supreme Court but in the last two decisions of the Supreme Court where specifically the issue of multiplier was taken for consideration and it held that the age of the deceased to be relevant, vide, Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Versus National Insurance Company Limited Kumar Sanjeev 2014.04.25 15:56 Cross Objection No.92-CII of 2013 in/and FAO No.2723 of 2013 -2- and others-2012 ACJ 2002 and as laid down in M.Mansoor Versus United India Insurance Company Limited-2013(12) SCALE 324 . It has been held that it is the age of the deceased which will be relevant. In the latter decision, the Supreme Court has also provided a rationale that where the claimants' ages are different, it will not be possible to take anyone of the person's age as relevant and, therefore, the surer scheme of assessing the compensation must relate only to the age of the deceased. If there are two opinions possible and the Tribunal has taken the decision of the Supreme Court to allow for the age of the deceased to be relevant, I find no reason for interfering with the same.
2. The deceased was an Engineer in a private mobile company and the evidence was brought through a representative of the employer that he was earning ` 7,000/-. The counsel argues that the court ought to have provided for a prospect of increase in salary even for private employment as held in the judgment in Reshma Kumari and others Versus Madan Mohan and another-2013(9) SCC 65 and would plead for a provision for increase to be applied to be applied in this case as well, which was not done by the Tribunal. The counsel would argue that a deduction of 50% taken was not tenable since the father was a paralytic and had been wholly dependent on his son. The Tribunal should have taken a lesser percentage as going towards the personal expenses. He would also Kumar Sanjeev 2014.04.25 15:56 Cross Objection No.92-CII of 2013 in/and FAO No.2723 of 2013 -3- state that there must also be a further provision for loss of love and affection for `25,000/-. While I would accede to the plea that a provision for increase must be done, I reject the other argument made by the counsel for the respondent, namely, that lesser percentage for personal consumption must be provided because his father was a paralytic. Even the provision for loss of love and affection is not to be applied indiscriminately for death of a major son which the Tribunal already has provided for `25,000/-. I find that to be appropriate and just.
3. The choice of multiplier is indeed a unit of number of years purchase to yield a particular amount of corpus, which if invested in a stable economic condition, will yield a return will equivalent to the contribution that would become possible for the claimants. Wherever contribution is thought of, it must be understood that it shall be only for the normal life span of the person who is seeking for the contribution. Logically, it would be wrong to even assume that the contribution to the parents would go on so long as the son lived in his entire life span. Compensations are assessed by projecting certain values in an otherwise uncertain world. Till a settled position comes through the decision of the Supreme Court to what would be appropriate for the choice of a multiplier, there shall be no further act of adventurism by the subordinate courts to the formula laid down in Sarla Verma Versus Delhi Transport Kumar Sanjeev 2014.04.25 15:56 Cross Objection No.92-CII of 2013 in/and FAO No.2723 of 2013 -4- Corporation and another-2009(6) SCC 121. I will not find any extraordinary situation that would require a higher contribution to the parents. The relatively higher multiplier applied itself ought to compensate for the higher dependence expected by the parents from their son.
4. I will take the income at `7,000/- as brought through evidence and apply a 50% increase as a prospect for future increments, provide for a 50% deduction and apply a multiplier of 18 and assess a compensation of `11,34,000/- as going towards loss of dependence. The Tribunal has already provided for `25,000/- for loss of love and affection which I retain. I would provide yet another amount of `25,000/- for funeral expenses and also add `6,000/- for loss to estate and take the total compensation as `11,90,000/-. The amount in excess over what has been awarded already by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till date of payment.
5. The appeal by the insurer is dismissed and the cross objection is allowed to the above extent.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.04.2014 sanjeev Kumar Sanjeev 2014.04.25 15:56