FAO No.2812 of 2011

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO No.2812 of 2011

DATE OF DECISION: January 7, 2013

AKASHBIR SINGH & ANR.

...APPELLANTS

VERSUS

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL.

1.

Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No

PRESENT: MR.H.S. BEDI, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS.

MR. SUVEER DEWAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.

M.JEYAPAUL, J.(ORAL)

1.

The widow, minor son and father of the deceased Jatinderbir

Singh aged 30 years at the time of accident have come forward with the

present appeal.

2.

The Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased at 30 years.

But instead of applying the multiplier of '17' as per the decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, it has adopted

the multiplier of '15'. Further, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of

the deceased at `5000/- inspite of the income tax returns filed by the

appellants showing the income of the deceased in ascending order. In fact,

the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased based on the

average income as evidenced by income tax returns filed by the deceased.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that

the Tribunal should have taken into consideration the last income tax return

filed on behalf of the deceased. He would also submit that the Tribunal has

FAO No.2812 of 2011

-2-

wrongly assessed the multiplier of '15' instead of '17' as per the decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. would submit that as the income of the

deceased was not steady and the income tax returns filed by the deceased

reflected ups and downs in his income, the Tribunal has rightly taken the

average income of the deceased at `5000/- per month. He would also

submit that Ex.C-2, income tax return filed lastly on behalf of the deceased

by his father cannot be taken into consideration as the same had been filed

after the death of the deceased.

5.

As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the

appellants, the Tribunal should have adopted a multiplier of '17' as per the

decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC

121. But the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of '15' to arrive at

the loss of dependency on the death of the deceased at the age of 30 years.

6.

Though there is slight variation in the income of the deceased

as per the income tax returns filed from the year 1997-98 to 2007-08, it has

been demonstrated that the deceased was earning annual income of

`50,000/- to `84,000/-. In my considered view, the deceased would have

been earning from his partnership business, which was established, at least a

sum of `84,000/- per annum as shown in the income tax return Ex.C-4

which was filed on 3.3.2007, long prior to his death in the accident on

2.3.2008. Of course, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing

for respondent No.1-Insurance Company Ex.C2, the last income tax return

FAO No.2812 of 2011

-3-

filed by the father of the deceased on 29.3.2008, twenty seven days after the

death of the deceased, cannot be taken into consideration.

7.

Further in terms of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, at least 50% of the

income will have to be added towards future prospects of the deceased.

8.

The appellants are also entitled to compensation towards loss of

consortium of the 1^st appellant, loss of estate and loss of funeral expenses as

per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC,

(2009) 6 SCC 121.

9.

In view of the above, a sum of `14,28,000/- (`84,000 +50%

thereof being

`42,000=`1,26,000-1/3^rd

thereof being

`42,000=

`84,000x17=`14,28,000/-) towards loss of dependency, `10,000/- towards

funeral expenses, `10,000/- tow