JUDGMENT/ORDER

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - All the above mentioned four appeals shall stand decided by this common order as the same arise out of the same award.

2. The appeals i.e. FAOs-6337 and 6338 of 2015 have been filed on behalf of the Insurance Company for reduction of the compensation on the ground of contributory negligence as well as on the ground of quantum.

FAO-6337-2015

3. The question of contributory negligence was gone into detail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on an earlier occasion when the matter was listed for hearing on 9.4.2019. The Court has already rejected the said ground by observing as under:-

"Consequently, with no evidence whatsoever having been led either by the appellant-insurance company or the driver and owner of the vehicle insured by the company, i.e. the TATA Canter vehicle bearing registration no. HR- 62-4988, to the effect that Harman Singh, who was riding motorcycle bearing registration no. HR-05X-5832, was in any manner negligent in driving his vehicle, I would not be inclined to reverse the finding of the Tribunal on issue no. 1 and consequently, that argument of learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company is rejected."

4. Coming to the quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the appellant submitted in FAO-6338-2015 that the deceased was only 16 years of age and the income has been assessed as Rs. 6,700/- per month whereas, at that point of time, the minimum wages were Rs. 5,547/-. Secondly, the future prospects should have been @ 40% and not @ 50%.

5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 does not dispute the legal position but submitted that, if at all, it should be rounded off to Rs. 6,000/- per month taking into account that both the mother and child died in the said accident. Agreeing with the same, this Court finds that the income should be assessed as Rs. 6,000/- per month to be fair instead of Rs. 6,700/- per month. Similarly, there is no dispute with respect to the future prospects which should have been granted @ 40% instead of @ 50%.

6. Accordingly, the award is modified as per the calculation provided as under:-

Sr. No.

Head

Amount assessed

1

Income

Rs. 6000 x 12 = Rs.72,000/- p.a.

2

Deduction @

Rs. 72000 x = 36,000/-

3

Future prospects @ 40%

Rs. 36,000 x 40% = 14400

Rs. 36,000 + 14400 = 50,400/-

4

Multiplier

Rs. 50,400 x 18 = 9,07,200/-

5

Loss of love and affection

Rs. 2,00,000/-

6

Funeral expenses

Rs. 25,000/-

7

Total

Rs. 11,32,000/-

8

Compensation awarded by the Tribunal

Rs. 13,10,400/-

7. It is pointed out that the entire recovery of the amount was stayed vide order dated 22.9.2015. Accordingly, the amount as per the above calculation i.e. Rs. 11,32,000/- is modified to be now deposited before the concerned Tribunal within two months from today alongwith interest as per the award passed by the Tribunal. In case, the said amount is not deposited within two months, the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum after the expiry of the aforesaid period of two months. However, in case the excess amount beyond Rs. 11,32,000/- has been deposited by the Insurance Company, the same shall be recovered.

8. Accordingly, the appeal i.e. FAO-6337-2015 filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed as per the modification of the award mentioned above.

FAO-6338-2015

9. Similarly, in the present appeal i.e. FAO-6338-2015, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the income of Rs. 9,500/- per month of deceased-Surender Kaur has been assessed on the higher side whereas it should have been Rs. 5,547/- per month as per the minimum wages applicable at that point of time.

10. However, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 while opposing the same has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sube Singh and others, FAO No. 218 of 2014 decided on 15.1.2014 wherein the Court did not interfere with the assessment of the deceased who was a housewife like in the present case wherein the Tribunal had fixed the