High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/214/2005disposed of

The Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd. v. Guglshan Bhatia Etc.

2026-04-07Mr. Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor12 pages

! """"

#$% %&'(')*+

,-(.#).#$'##)/$.%0( 11%--#)$( 2( $#$% #03#)##)/$.%0( %(1)/%)$(

.%0'%)$#-)(,0#)&%41#)35$/ 11%--#)$ 2( ,-(.#).#$'##)/$.%0( %(1)/%)$( * 65 !2

!""#

$ %&'()

*& + * %' ,

-&(+.!)

//// !#(.7'0')8. #$.09 0#-

'((

)% %*(+,

0 1),2*,%2'

!"#$% / 1),2*,**3

!"%

! 4

! 0 1),2*,%2' ,

)% %*(+,

5'-

2' 6

/ 1),2*,**3 7

9 0 36 !

1),2*,%2'

0 0:

0 8

0 0 0

0 0

0 3 /! ! )*+,

% )

0 >4)

* )

( )

3+ 4 0

' )

%,4

! 4

0 >

#$%&'(( )

+ *

&'(( ,

- "

#$%&'(( - "

#$% ,

)

&'( ) * +

. +&'( $

)

/ 0 &'(

$ 1

< !

! !

)% %*(+, 2 >

!>@ 3 0

0 0 !

3 ?

%,$

16.

Learned counsel for the appellants in FAO No.211 of 2005 argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. Learned counsel contended that income of the deceased has been assessed on lower side. No future prospects have been added to the income of the deceased and since deceased was 25 years of age and was a businessman, 40% amount should have been added to the monthly income towards future propsects. Learned counsel contended that the Tribunal after deducting one third towards personal expenses has applied mutliplier of 17, whereas deceased has left behind five dependents and in these circumstances, one fouth of the amount should have been deducted towards personal expenses and multiplier of 18 should have been applied to the loss of dependancy. Learned counsel next contended that no

compensation has been awarded for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and the compensation is thus liable to be enhanced suitably. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon 2009(6) SCC 121- Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680-National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other, 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others and (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur.

17.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents in FAO No.211 of 2005 further argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for. ( 4

B8,/ )

1),2*,**3 B

36 2'

$ C C)

1),2*,%2'

0 0 0 0

0 0

B< ) ! >4) DAB

$ $

9 0

+ '

2" #

!B8 !

2+ 0

! 4

!B8

! !

20.

Stand of claimants is that deceased used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month and to prove his income, claimants have examined PW3/A- Ashok Kumar, Accountant, Bhatia Motors and Bhatia Agency, who deposed that he maintains the accounts of both Bhatia Motors and Bhatia Agency. Chandan Bhatia (since deceased) was drawing a salary as an employee from Bhatia Motors and he was a partner w.e.f. the year 1998 in Bhatia Agency and thereafter, he stopped withdrawing salary from Bhatia Motors. He deposed that Chandan Bhatia had been filing income tax returns and he drew salary @Rs.10,000/- per month from the Bhatia Agency from 1.11.1998 to 31.3.1999 and he produced the certificate of the Income Tax Department `Mark X'. He further deposed that Chandan Bhatia

; was also looking after business of Hindu Undivided family under the name and style of Chandan Bhatia and his HUF income for the year 1999-2000 was Rs.98,510/-.

21.

PW4- Subhash Arora produced the summoned record relating to assessment year 2000-2001, financial year 1999-2000 in respect of deceasedChandan Bhatia and deposed that he had filed the returns. He produced assessment report Ex.P.14 and photocopy of computation chart Ex.P.15 and certificate issued by Shri Anuj Garg, Income Tax Officer Ex.P.16, returns of Chandan Bhatia for the financial years 1998-1999 and proved the assessment order Ex.P17 and computation chart Ex.P18.

22.

PW19- Som Parkash, Inspector, while appearing as PW5 produced the record of HUF House No.1014, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh relating to Chandan Bhatia and proved the photocopy of the assessment record of the financial years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Ex.P7 and Ex.P9, computation chart for the financial year 2000-2001 Ex.P8, computation chart for the year 2000-2001 Ex.P10 and voucher Ex.P11, acknowledgement return for the year 1998-1999 Ex.P13 and its computation chart Ex.P6.

23.

Learned Tribunal after going through the evidence on file has come to the conclusion that only the individual income of the deceased is to be taken into consideration in assessing the compensation and not his income from Hindu Undivided Family as the claimants are still getting the said income being members of HUF. The Tribunal relied upon the last income tax return Ex.P14 for the assessment year 2000-2001, according to which annual income of the deceased from all sources was Rs.1,82,539/-. A perusal of the income tax return

< Ex.P14 shows that the income of deceased from business or profession was Rs.1,59,012/- per annum and income from other sources was Rs.25,077/- and he had also paid income tax amounting to Rs.29,500/- out of his afore-said total income. The Tribunal after deducting one third of the amount towards personal expenses assessed the annual dependency to be Rs.1,21,334/-. However, only 15% of the amount earned from "income from other sources" could have been added to his income instead of the entire amount of Rs.25,077/- in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2022(4) RCR (Civil) 435 - K. Ramya and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. As such, 15% of the income from other sources towards managerial skills thus comes out to Rs.3,762/- and the annual income comes out to Rs.1,62,774/- (Rs.1,59,012/- + Rs.3,762/-).

24.

However no future prospects have been added to the income of the deceased. Deceased was 25 years of age and was running his own business and as such, 40% amount has to be added to the annual income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and after adding the same, the annual income comes out to Rs.2,27,884/- and out of this amount, a sum of Rs.35,000/- has to be deducted towards income tax and after deducting the same, the annual income comes out to Rs.1,92,884/-. 25.

The petition in hand has been instituted by parents, wife and two minor children of the deceased. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind 5 dependents. The Tribunal has deducted one third of the income towards personal expenses but 1/4rd of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and

after deducting the same, the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.1,92,884/- - Rs.48,221/- = Rs.1,44,663/-.

26.

Since deceased was 25 years of age, multiplier of 18 has to be applied as per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra) instead of multiplier of 17 applied by the Tribunal and after applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs.26,03,934/-.

27.

In addition to this, claimant No.3-wife is held entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of consortium', Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses', as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Likewise, claimants 1, 2, 4 and 5 who are parents and minor children of deceased are also entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of 'loss of parental & filial consortium', in view of law laid down in Nanu Ram's case (supra) and Satinder Kaur's case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.28,33,934/-. 28.

Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:- S.No.

Under Head Compensation awarded by the High Court 1.

Annual income of deceased Rs.1,62,774/- per annum 2.

Age of deceased 25 years 3.

Future prospects @ 40% Rs.65,109/- 4.

Total income Rs.2,27,884/- 5.

Income Tax Deduction )23+, Total Income after deduction of income tax )'(( +, 5.

Number of dependents 6.

Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/4th) Rs.48,221/-

Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,44,663/- 8.

Multiplier 9.

Compensation on account of Loss of dependency Rs.26,03,934/- 10.

Compensation under conventional heads Rs.70,000/- ( wife) Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each to parents and minor children of deceased) Total Compensation Rs.28,33,934/- Interest 9% 29.

Resultantly, FAO No.211 of 2005 is partly accepted and appellants/ claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.28,33,934/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.7,69,256/- (Rs.28,33,934/- - Rs.20,64,678/-) (Rounded to Rs.7,69,500/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal payable alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 22.12.2000, till realization payable by respondents No.2, 3 and 5, jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.50,000/- each be paid to parents, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- be paid to children of the deceased and remaining amount be paid to wife of deceased along with proportionate interest. As mother of the deceased has died during pendency of the appeal, the share of mother will go to the legal heirs of the mother, who are already on record as respondents No.2 to 5. 2 , >@ 3

2 ) !

! 1E

$ 8 B " # 32

'((

)

* +# ,-./0 1 +!!

%2 4

"># < 2

"# !

22 !

!#(.7'0')8. #$.0 ,/8% 10'-+9 0%), 0 1"2 32 0*4 32