Akashbir Singh and ANR V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

FAO/2812/2011

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the widow, minor son, and father of the deceased Jatinderbir Singh, who was 30 years old at the time of his death in an accident. The appeal contests the Tribunal's decision which applied a multiplier of '15' instead of '17' as per the Supreme Court's decision in Sarla Verma vs. DTC for calculating loss of dependency. Additionally, the Tribunal assessed the deceased's monthly income at \\u20b95000/-, contrary to the income tax returns showing a higher income. The Insurance Company defended the Tribunal's decision, arguing the deceased's income was inconsistent, justifying the average income assessment. The High Court found merit in the appellants' arguments, adjusting the multiplier and income assessment, leading to an increased compensation amount.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 819488 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sarla Verma vs. DTC
• Laws Referred To: Sarla Verma vs. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUVEER DEWAN
• Assessee Lawyers: H S BEDI
• Keywords: Compensation; Funeral expenses; Income Assessment; Loss of consortium; Loss of dependency; Loss of estate; Multiplier

Judgement Text

"FAO No.2812 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYAN A 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.JEYAPA UL, 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 1st 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=`1,26,000-1/3rd thereof being `42,000= `84,000x17=`14,28,000/-) towards loss of dependency, `10,000/- towards funeral expenses, `10,000/- towards loss of consortium of the 1st appellant and `10,000/- towards loss of estate, in aggregate a sum of 14,58,000/- with interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced portion of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization is awarded. The rate of interest on the amount awarded by the Tribunal and the mode of apportionment done by the Tribunal stands confirmed. 10. With the above modification in the quantum of compensation, the appeal is allowed in part. January 7, 2013 (M.JEYAPAUL ) Gulati JUDGE "