Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 27 (PNJ)

New India Assurance Company Limited v. Seema Devi

2015-01-07

AMOL RATTAN SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, J.: - The present appeal has been filed on the ground that the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, is excessive. 2. Since Mr. Sidhu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Company, has strenuously argued on the issue of stay of compensation on the prospective income of the deceased, a detailed order is being passed with regard thereto. 3. Learned counsel has argued that the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal needs to be reduced on the entire amount of dependent income assessed by the Tribunal, in view of the fact that the respondents are in receipt of the benefit of assistance provided by the Haryana Government, under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006. In my opinion, the reduced multiplier (on the notional age) needs to be applied only qua the actual income that is stated to be continuously paid by the Government to respondents No.1 to 5, for a period of 12 years. The multiplier would continue to be as per the actual age of the deceased as applicable on the date of his death, in respect of the amount assessed as loss of prospective income of the deceased. 4. This would be so because the amount payable under the aforesaid rules, to the respondents (or possibly only respondent No.1), would continue to be the monthly salary drawn by the deceased at the time of his death. Thus, as regards that monthly amount of Rs.49,199/-, as per the salary certificate proved before the Tribunal, the age of the deceased would notionally need to be taken to be 52 years (40+12), taking his death to have occurred 12 years later, for the purpose of determining the multiplier to be applied. As per the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107] : ( 2009 (6) SCC 121 ), the multiplier to be applied would thus be 11 (as per the age of 52 years), and not 14 (as applicable at the age of 40 years). 5. As per the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107] : ( 2009 (6) SCC 121 ), the multiplier to be applied would thus be 11 (as per the age of 52 years), and not 14 (as applicable at the age of 40 years). 5. However, as regards the multiplier to be applied on the loss of future income, which in the present case has been awarded at the rate of 30% on the actual income (again in terms of the ratio of Sarla Vermas’ case), it would continue to be 14, as per the actual age of deceased on the date of his death, i.e. 40 years. The reasoning, in my opinion, prima-facie, would be, that the compensation being paid by the Government, to the next of kin of the deceased, would continue for the next 12 years to be the same as the salary last drawn by him. As such, any increase in income that he would have earned had he remained alive, is not part of the compensation being paid to the next of the kin. Therefore, the loss of dependent earning on the said prospective income of the deceased, is very much an actual loss forever, to his family. Hence, the multiplier to be applied on the loss of dependency on prospective income, would be as is applicable as per the actual age of the person who dies in a motor accident. 6. However, as the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 14, as already noticed, to the entire loss of dependent income of respondents No.1 to 5, and not just to the prospective income, let notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 11.03.2016. 7. Since, even by taking the notional age (after 12 years of death) of the deceased to be 52 years, the total amount payable by way of compensation, would not be less than Rs.49,00,000/-, even by applying a multiplier of 11 on the loss of actual salary, which would stop after 12 years of the death of the deceased, the said amount would obviously be therefore, payable to respondents No.1 to 5, in the opinion of this Court. 8. However, payment of compensation beyond Rs.49,00,000/- shall remain stayed in the meanwhile.