215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

FAO-1335-2007 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 30.04.2025 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Appellant VERSUS Smt. Sharda Rani & Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for the appellant -Insurance Company.

Mr. Ashwani Arora and Mr. Vipul, Advocates for the respondent -.-

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by appellant- Insurance Company for setting aside the award dated 16.11.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal').

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company has contended that the learned Tribunal erred in computing the compensation by taking into account the gross salary of the deceased. He further argued that only the net carry home salary after deducting components such as House Rent Allowance (HRA), Transport Allowance, Provident Fund contribution, PF loan repayments, Special Allowance Fund (SAF), and leave encashment ought to have been considered for calculating the income of the deceased. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and award dated 16.11.2006 be set aside.

TRIPTI SAINI

4. Per contra, learned for the respondents argues on the lines of the award dated 16.11.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

6. Relevant portion of the award dated 16.11.2006 is reproduced as under :-

“ISSUE NOs.2 & 3:-

9. Both of these issues have been taken up for their simultaneous discussion as they are inter-dependent and inter-related and can be conveniently so discussed together so as to avoid tautology.

10. Sharda Rani, widow of deceased Ramesh, has stepped into the witness box as PW-1 to State her pleaded case on solemn affirmation in her affidavit-cum-examination in chief Ex.PA. She has also led into Copy of postmortem report of Ramesh Kumar as per which Ramesh Kumar was 40 years of age at the time of accident and cause of his death was shock and hemorrhage following injuries to vital organs like brain and lungs which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Ex PC is the salary certificate issued by Directorate Haryana, the Budget of Ramesh Kumar Officer in the General Health Services, Punchkula, as per which Ramesh Kumar drew gross salary of Rs. 6322/- for the month of December, 2004.

11. It is a well recognized principle that while computing loss of dependency from the proven income of the deceased, one third has to be set apart being the amount which the deceased must have been spending upon himself which brings out the loss of dependency of the TRIPTI SAINI claimants to Rs.4214/- per month. In view of age o the Ramesh Kumar being 40 years at the time of his death, a multiplier of 15 has to be applied and arithmetically calculated the amount of compensation in this case world out to be Rs.4214x12x15=Rs.7,58,639/-. The claimants are further held entitled to Rs.2000/- to defray funeral expenses and Sharda Rani, claimant No.1 is awarded another sum of Rs.5000 for loss of consortium of her spouse, totaling Rs.7,65,639/-

rounded off Rs.7.66 lakhs.

7. The principle plank of the argument by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the aforementioned allowances were in the nature of personal benefits, and thus should not have been added to the basic salary for computing the loss of dependency. It is vehemently contended that components such as Transport Allowance, HRA, PF contribution, Special Allowance Fund (SAF) and leave encashment are inherently personal in character and therefore ought to have been excluded from the computation of in