FAO NO.7072 OF 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA VIMLESH @ BABLESH RANI AND ORS. VIMLESH @ BABLESH RANI AND ORS. VIMLESH @ BABLESH RANI AND ORS. VIMLESH @ BABLESH RANI AND ORS. Vs Vs Vs Vs RANBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER RANBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER RANBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER RANBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER 1111 The date when the judgment was reserved The date when the judgment was reserved The date when the judgment was reserved The date when the judgment was reserved 2222 The date when The date when The date when The date when 3333 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 4444 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced 5555 The delay, if any, of the The delay, if any, of the The delay, if any, of the The delay, if any, of the judgment, and reasons thereof. judgment, and reasons thereof. judgment, and reasons thereof. judgment, and reasons thereof. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the appellant Mr. Shubham Gupta Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate for HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. 1.1.1.1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 08.11.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Clai at Jagadhari (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.20,85,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded on account of death of Ashok Raj @ Ashok Kumar in a motor vehicular accident dated 09.08.2009. 2.2.2.2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of the case is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH FAO FAO FAO FAO No. No. No. No.7072 7072 7072 7072 VIMLESH @ BABLESH RANI AND ORS. VIMLESH @ BABLESH RANI AND ORS. VIMLESH @ BABLESH RANI AND ORS. VIMLESH @ BABLESH RANI AND ORS. RANBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER RANBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER RANBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER RANBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER The date when the judgment was reserved The date when the judgment was reserved The date when the judgment was reserved The date when the judgment was reserved The date when The date when The date when The date when the judgment is pronounced the judgment is pronounced the judgment is pronounced the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the The delay, if any, of the The delay, if any, of the The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full pronouncement of full pronouncement of full pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof. judgment, and reasons thereof. judgment, and reasons thereof. judgment, and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 08.11.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Clai at Jagadhari (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby compensation to the tune of alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded on account of death of Ashok Raj @ Ashok Kumar in a motor vehicular accident dated As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of the case is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 7072 7072 7072 7072 of of of of 2011 2011 2011 2011 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) …Appe …Appe …Appe …Appellant llant llant llantssss …Respondent …Respondent …Respondent …Respondentssss The date when the judgment was reserved The date when the judgment was reserved The date when the judgment was reserved The date when the judgment was reserved 07.04 07.04 07.04 07.04....202 202 202 2026666 the judgment is pronounced the judgment is pronounced the judgment is pronounced the judgment is pronounced 22227777.0.0.0.05555.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 22227777.0.0.0.05555.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full Full Full Full pronouncement of full pronouncement of full pronouncement of full pronouncement of full Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJAAAA , Advocate Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 08.11.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby compensation to the tune of alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded on account of death of Ashok Raj @ Ashok Kumar in a motor vehicular accident dated As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of the case is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. 1 The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated ms Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby compensation to the tune of alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded on account of death of Ashok Raj @ Ashok Kumar in a motor vehicular accident dated As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of MOHMED ATIK 2026.05.27 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO NO.7072 OF 2011 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS. APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS. APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS. APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS. 3.3.3.3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side and deserved enhancement. It was argued that the Tribunal erred in deducting washing allowance from the salary of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly deducted income tax though the deceased was entitled to various exemptions and deductions under the Income Tax Act. It was also con deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been one third keeping in view the number of dependents. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount awarded under conventional heads was extremely meager and required substantial enhancement in light of subsequent pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY. No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY. No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY. No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY. 4.4.4.4. Per contra, learned counsel representing Company, neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference. DISCUSSION DISCUSSION DISCUSSION DISCUSSION AND REASONING AND REASONING AND REASONING AND REASONING 5.5.5.5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case. I find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. 2011 (O&M) ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS. APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS. APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS. APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side and deserved enhancement. It was argued that the Tribunal erred in deducting washing allowance from the salary of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly deducted income tax though the deceased was entitled to various exemptions and deductions under the Income Tax Act. It was also con deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been one third keeping in view the number of dependents. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount awarded under conventional heads was extremely meager and d substantial enhancement in light of subsequent pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY. No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY. No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY. No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY. Per contra, learned counsel representing ny, neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no AND REASONING AND REASONING AND REASONING AND REASONING I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case. I find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ED COUNSEL FOR THE ED COUNSEL FOR THE ED COUNSEL FOR THE Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side and deserved enhancement. It was argued that the Tribunal erred in deducting washing allowance and special diet allowance from the salary of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly deducted income tax though the deceased was entitled to various exemptions and deductions under the Income Tax Act. It was also contended that deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been one-fourth instead of one third keeping in view the number of dependents. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount awarded under conventional heads was extremely meager and d substantial enhancement in light of subsequent pronouncements of the ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No. 2/Insurance ny, neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case. I find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for 2 ED COUNSEL FOR THE ED COUNSEL FOR THE ED COUNSEL FOR THE ED COUNSEL FOR THE Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side and deserved enhancement. It was allowance and special diet allowance from the salary of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly deducted income tax though the deceased was entitled to various tended that fourth instead of one- third keeping in view the number of dependents. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount awarded under conventional heads was extremely meager and d substantial enhancement in light of subsequent pronouncements of the ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT respondent No. 2/Insurance ny, neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book of the case. I find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for MOHMED ATIK 2026.05.27 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO NO.7072 OF 2011 QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED 6.6.6.6. A perusal of the record Constable in U.P. Police. PW Police Department, Meerut, proved the salary certificate Ex.P9 and categorically deposed that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.15,363/ learned Tribunal excluded washing allowance of Rs.30/ of Rs.700/- while computing income. However, the said approach cannot be sustained. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions has consistent that while determining income of a salaried employee, allowances forming part of regular emoluments and contributing towards the economic benefit of the family are liable to be included unless they are purely reimbursable in nature. In the present case, the allowances in question were being regularly paid to the deceased as part of his monthly salary. There is nothing on record to suggest that the same were merely reimbursable allowances. Furthermore, the Tribunal deducted income tax of Rs.7,040/ liability of the deceased. Moreover, the taxable income after permissible deductions under the Income Tax Act would substantially stand reduced. In absence of any reliable evidence regarding a income tax was not justified. Reference in this regard can be made to Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” wherein it was held that unless there is positive evidence regarding income tax liability, arbitrary deduction ought not to be made. Consequently, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.15,363/ 2011 (O&M) QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED A perusal of the record shows that the Constable in U.P. Police. PW-4 Ombir Singh Pundeer, Assistant Accountant, Police Department, Meerut, proved the salary certificate Ex.P9 and categorically deposed that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.15,363/ learned Tribunal excluded washing allowance of Rs.30/ while computing income. However, the said approach cannot be sustained. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions has consistent that while determining income of a salaried employee, allowances forming part of regular emoluments and contributing towards the economic benefit of the family are liable to be included unless they are purely reimbursable in nature. In the case, the allowances in question were being regularly paid to the deceased as part of his monthly salary. There is nothing on record to suggest that the same were merely reimbursable allowances. Furthermore, the Tribunal deducted income tax of Rs.7,040/-. However, no cogent evidence was led to establish the actual tax liability of the deceased. Moreover, the taxable income after permissible deductions under the Income Tax Act would substantially stand reduced. In absence of any reliable evidence regarding actual tax liability, deduction towards income tax was not justified. Reference in this regard can be made to Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” wherein it was held that unless there is positive evidence regarding income tax liability, arbitrary deduction ought not to be made. Consequently, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.15,363/ shows that the deceased was working as a 4 Ombir Singh Pundeer, Assistant Accountant, Police Department, Meerut, proved the salary certificate Ex.P9 and categorically deposed that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.15,363/- per month. The learned Tribunal excluded washing allowance of Rs.30/- and special diet allowance while computing income. However, the said approach cannot be sustained. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions has consistently held that while determining income of a salaried employee, allowances forming part of regular emoluments and contributing towards the economic benefit of the family are liable to be included unless they are purely reimbursable in nature. In the case, the allowances in question were being regularly paid to the deceased as part of his monthly salary. There is nothing on record to suggest that the same were merely reimbursable allowances. Furthermore, the Tribunal deducted income However, no cogent evidence was led to establish the actual tax liability of the deceased. Moreover, the taxable income after permissible deductions under the Income Tax Act would substantially stand reduced. In ctual tax liability, deduction towards income tax was not justified. Reference in this regard can be made to “Vimal “Vimal “Vimal “Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” reported as 2013 (7) SCC 476, 2013 (7) SCC 476, 2013 (7) SCC 476, 2013 (7) SCC 476, wherein it was held that unless there is positive evidence regarding income tax liability, arbitrary deduction ought not to be made. Consequently, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.15,363/-. 3 was working as a 4 Ombir Singh Pundeer, Assistant Accountant, Police Department, Meerut, proved the salary certificate Ex.P9 and categorically . The and special diet allowance while computing income. However, the said approach cannot be ly held that while determining income of a salaried employee, allowances forming part of regular emoluments and contributing towards the economic benefit of the family are liable to be included unless they are purely reimbursable in nature. In the case, the allowances in question were being regularly paid to the deceased as part of his monthly salary. There is nothing on record to suggest that the same were merely reimbursable allowances. Furthermore, the Tribunal deducted income However, no cogent evidence was led to establish the actual tax liability of the deceased. Moreover, the taxable income after permissible deductions under the Income Tax Act would substantially stand reduced. In ctual tax liability, deduction towards “Vimal “Vimal “Vimal “Vimal 2013 (7) SCC 476, 2013 (7) SCC 476, 2013 (7) SCC 476, 2013 (7) SCC 476, wherein it was held that unless there is positive evidence regarding income tax liability, arbitrary deduction ought not to be made. Consequently, the monthly MOHMED ATIK 2026.05.27 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO NO.7072 OF 2011 QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. 7.7.7.7. The deceased was aged about 43 years and 6 months at the time of accident. The age recorded by the Tribunal is duly borne out from the record and is accordingly affirmed. Since the deceased was in permanent g addition towards future prospects is liable to be granted. In Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi,” Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi,” Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi,” Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi,” Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the deceased was aged between 40 to 50 years and was in permanent employment, an addition of 30% towards future prospects is to be made. Accordingly, multiplier of 14 is applied. Further, as the dependents of the deceased comprise widow, and two minor children; three in all, th living expenses of the deceased therefore ought to be assessed at one QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS 8.8.8.8. Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” reported as 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77 India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur”, India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur”, India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur”, India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur”, compensation awarded under c accordingly. Appellants/claimants are thus, held entitled for Rs. 18,000/ compensation under funeral head and Rs. 18,000/ Consortium is assessed to the tune of Rs. 1,44, appellants/claimants being the widow and minor children are entitled to spousal and parental consortium. 2011 (O&M) QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. The deceased was aged about 43 years and 6 months at the time of accident. The age recorded by the Tribunal is duly borne out from the record and is accordingly affirmed. Since the deceased was in permanent g addition towards future prospects is liable to be granted. In Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi,” Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi,” Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi,” Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi,” reported as Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the deceased between 40 to 50 years and was in permanent employment, an addition of 30% towards future prospects is to be made. Accordingly, multiplier of 14 is applied. Further, as the dependents of the deceased comprise widow, and two minor children; three in all, the appropriate deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased therefore ought to be assessed at one QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur”, India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur”, India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur”, India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur”, compensation awarded under conventional heads is also required to be assessed accordingly. Appellants/claimants are thus, held entitled for Rs. 18,000/ compensation under funeral head and Rs. 18,000/ Consortium is assessed to the tune of Rs. 1,44, appellants/claimants being the widow and minor children are entitled to spousal and parental consortium. QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND DEDUCTION DEDUCTION DEDUCTION DEDUCTION The deceased was aged about 43 years and 6 months at the time of accident. The age recorded by the Tribunal is duly borne out from the record and is accordingly affirmed. Since the deceased was in permanent government service, addition towards future prospects is liable to be granted. In “National Insurance “National Insurance “National Insurance “National Insurance reported as 2017 (16) SCC 680, 2017 (16) SCC 680, 2017 (16) SCC 680, 2017 (16) SCC 680, Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the deceased between 40 to 50 years and was in permanent employment, an addition of 30% towards future prospects is to be made. Accordingly, multiplier of 14 is applied. Further, as the dependents of the deceased comprise widow, and two e appropriate deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased therefore ought to be assessed at one-third. QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and “United “United “United “United reported as (2021) 11 SCC 780, (2021) 11 SCC 780, (2021) 11 SCC 780, (2021) 11 SCC 780, onventional heads is also required to be assessed accordingly. Appellants/claimants are thus, held entitled for Rs. 18,000/- compensation under funeral head and Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate. Loss of Consortium is assessed to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/- (48,000 x 3) as appellants/claimants being the widow and minor children are entitled to spousal 4 DEDUCTION DEDUCTION DEDUCTION DEDUCTION The deceased was aged about 43 years and 6 months at the time of accident. The age recorded by the Tribunal is duly borne out from the record and is overnment service, “National Insurance “National Insurance “National Insurance “National Insurance 2017 (16) SCC 680, 2017 (16) SCC 680, 2017 (16) SCC 680, 2017 (16) SCC 680, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the deceased between 40 to 50 years and was in permanent employment, an addition of 30% towards future prospects is to be made. Accordingly, multiplier of 14 is applied. Further, as the dependents of the deceased comprise widow, and two e appropriate deduction towards the personal and Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another”, “United “United “United “United (2021) 11 SCC 780, (2021) 11 SCC 780, (2021) 11 SCC 780, (2021) 11 SCC 780, onventional heads is also required to be assessed as towards loss of estate. Loss of (48,000 x 3) as appellants/claimants being the widow and minor children are entitled to spousal MOHMED ATIK 2026.05.27 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO NO.7072 OF 2011 CONCLUSION CONCLUSION CONCLUSION CONCLUSION 9.9.9.9. In view of the discussion made herein above, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for the grant of S.No. S.No. S.No. S.No. Nature Nature Nature Nature 1. Annual Income of deceased 2. Add 30% future prospects 3. Total Income (Rs. 1,84,356 + Rs. 55,306.8) 4. Deduction (1/3 5. Net 6.6.6.6. Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 14 Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 14 Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 14 Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 14 as per the age of 43 years (Rs. 1,59,775.2 x 14) as per the age of 43 years (Rs. 1,59,775.2 x 14) as per the age of 43 years (Rs. 1,59,775.2 x 14) as per the age of 43 years (Rs. 1,59,775.2 x 14) 7.7.7.7. Loss of Consortium Loss of Consortium Loss of Consortium Loss of Consortium 8.8.8.8. Funeral expenses Funeral expenses Funeral expenses Funeral expenses 9.9.9.9. Loss of estate Loss of estate Loss of estate Loss of estate Total compensation Total compensation Total compensation Total compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced Amount Enhanced Amount Enhanced Amount Enhanced Amount Accordingly, appellants/claimants shall be entitled to receive above enhanced compensation in Tribunal. 10. 10. 10. 10. The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not equitable and just in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in and others vs. National Insurance Company and others vs. National Insurance Company and others vs. National Insurance Company and others vs. National Insurance Company (4) SCC 513 (4) SCC 513 (4) SCC 513 (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, 2011 (O&M) CONCLUSION CONCLUSION CONCLUSION CONCLUSION In view of the discussion made herein above, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for the grant of compensation in the following manner: Nature Nature Nature Nature Annual Income of deceased Add 30% future prospects Total Income (Rs. 1,84,356 + Rs. 55,306.8) Deduction (1/3rd) Net Income (Rs. 2,39,662.8 – Rs. 79,887.6) Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 14 Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 14 Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 14 Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 14 as per the age of 43 years (Rs. 1,59,775.2 x 14) as per the age of 43 years (Rs. 1,59,775.2 x 14) as per the age of 43 years (Rs. 1,59,775.2 x 14) as per the age of 43 years (Rs. 1,59,775.2 x 14) Loss of Consortium Loss of Consortium Loss of Consortium Loss of Consortium Funeral expenses Funeral expenses Funeral expenses Funeral expenses Loss of estate Loss of estate Loss of estate Loss of estate Total compensation Total compensation Total compensation Total compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced Amount Enhanced Amount Enhanced Amount Enhanced Amount Accordingly, appellants/claimants shall be entitled to receive above enhanced compensation in the proportion already determined by the learned The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not equitable and just in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in and others vs. National Insurance Company and others vs. National Insurance Company and others vs. National Insurance Company and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, Limited and other, Limited and other, Limited and other, approved in a subsequent judgment titled as K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, In view of the discussion made herein above, the appellants/claimants compensation in the following manner:- Amount (in Rs.) Amount (in Rs.) Amount (in Rs.) Amount (in Rs.) 1,84,356/- 55,306.8/- Total Income (Rs. 1,84,356 + Rs. 55,306.8) 2,39,662.8/- 79,887.6/- Rs. 79,887.6) 1,59,775.2/- Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 14 Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 14 Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 14 Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 14 as per the age of 43 years (Rs. 1,59,775.2 x 14) as per the age of 43 years (Rs. 1,59,775.2 x 14) as per the age of 43 years (Rs. 1,59,775.2 x 14) as per the age of 43 years (Rs. 1,59,775.2 x 14) 22,36,852.8/ 22,36,852.8/ 22,36,852.8/ 22,36,852.8/---- 1,44,000/ 1,44,000/ 1,44,000/ 1,44,000/---- 18,000/ 18,000/ 18,000/ 18,000/---- 18,000/ 18,000/ 18,000/ 18,000/---- 24,16,852.8/ 24,16,852.8/ 24,16,852.8/ 24,16,852.8/---- 20,85,000 20,85,000 20,85,000 20,85,000////---- 3,31,852.8/ 3,31,852.8/ 3,31,852.8/ 3,31,852.8/---- Rounded off to Rounded off to Rounded off to Rounded off to 3,31,855/ 3,31,855/ 3,31,855/ 3,31,855/---- Accordingly, appellants/claimants shall be entitled to receive above the proportion already determined by the learned The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not equitable and just in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Smt. Supe Dei “Smt. Supe Dei “Smt. Supe Dei “Smt. Supe Dei Limited and other, Limited and other, Limited and other, Limited and other, reported as (2009) (2009) (2009) (2009) approved in a subsequent judgment titled as “Puttamma and others vs. “Puttamma and others vs. “Puttamma and others vs. “Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, thus, the interest is 5 In view of the discussion made herein above, the appellants/claimants Rounded off to Rounded off to Rounded off to Rounded off to Accordingly, appellants/claimants shall be entitled to receive above the proportion already determined by the learned The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not equitable and just in “Smt. Supe Dei “Smt. Supe Dei “Smt. Supe Dei “Smt. Supe Dei (2009) (2009) (2009) (2009) “Puttamma and others vs. “Puttamma and others vs. “Puttamma and others vs. “Puttamma and others vs. thus, the interest is MOHMED ATIK 2026.05.27 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO NO.7072 OF 2011 enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today. Nee here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. 11. In view of the instance of the appellants/claimants application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. May May May May 22227777,,,, 202 202 202 2026666 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2011 (O&M) enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today. Nee here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. In view of the foregoing discussion instance of the appellants/claimants stands application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation re-assessed from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be discussion, the present appeal preferred at the stands allowed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 6 assessed from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% dless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be preferred at the Pending miscellaneous MOHMED ATIK 2026.05.27 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment