CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri. Mahesh, the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is his complaint that the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 6,19,304/- instead of Rs. 4,90,220/- and thereby making a difference of Rs. 1,29,084/ -. Such difference had occurred for the simple, reason, that, when the deceased had 10 months to go before retirement, the Tribunal had taken 11 multiplier, flat, instead of applying lesser multiplier as he had only 10 months of service and after retirement and thereafter he were to get 50% of the salary as pension and that, 1/3rd of the annual, income, had, been deducted towards personal expenses as the Tribunal - normally does. It is a case of death and the claimants are, the widow, and son. Since it is a case of death, I do not think it will make that big difference, in the matter of assessment of compensation, even if it is felt that there may be some error and thus, the compensation might have been marginally excess and on the "higher side; nevertheless, from the point of view that the claim is by the widow and son, I feel that the award cannot be challenged that seriously before this Court by filing this appeal. All the more, when there is a difference of Rs. 1,29,000/-, I feel that, that part of the award may be reduced by one half of the excess amount shown by the counsel for the appellant.

( 2 ) SINCE the Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant Insurance Co, is going to loose substantial sum, the award stands reduced from Rs. 6,19,304/- to Rs. 5,54,720/ -.

( 3 ) THE Counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per the, Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in ILR 2000 Kar 3809, the award would have been Rs. 4,90,220/ -. In this context, it is relevant to extract paras 16 and 17 of the reported decision. The same are as hereunder,"16. Where the multiplier' applicable is higher than the number of years of service which the deceased had before superannuation, the contribution to the family (or loss of dependency) cannot obviously be calculated with reference to the salary income, for the entire period of multiplier. Let us illustrate, if a person aged 56 years (whose age of superannuation is 60 years) dies in an accident, leaving behind him surviving his wife and two children, how should the total loss of dependency be calculated? let us assume that his salary was Rs. 6,000. 00 and after retirement, his pension would be Rs. 3,000/ -. Under the Davies method accepted and adopted by the Supreme Court, the applicable multiplier will be 9. But, deceased would have got salary income for only 4 years and then he would get only pension. If the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is one third, the contribution to the family during the period of service (4 years period) would have been Rs. 4,000/- (that is Rs. 6000-2000 ). But obviously the contribution to the family would not have, been Rs. 4,000/- after his retirement, that is 5th year onwards. When the, pension is Rs. 3,000/- per, month, after deducting one third as personal and living expenses, the contribution to the family will only be Rs. 2,000/- per month. Therefore, the loss of dependency cannot be taken, as Rs. 4,000/- per month for the entire period of 9' years representing the multiplier. It has to be taken as Rs. 4,000/- per month for the first 'four years' (when he would have been in service) and Rs. 2000/- per month for the remaining five years (when he would have received pension ). The method adopted in the above illustration will have to be applied in this case. 17. In this case, the deceased was aged 53 years at the time of death and she would have, attained the age of superannuation in about 7 years. The multiplier period is 9 years. After 7 Years, the income would not have been Rs. 16,852,00/- per month, but, only roughly 50% of it as pension, and consequently the loss of dependency would have been 50% of Rs. 1,20,000,00/- per annum. Thus, loss of dependency will have to be c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document