Unitied India Insurance Co Ltd v. Sudesh Kumari And ORS

FAO No. 1737 of 2015 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1737 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.02.2018 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

....Appellant

Versus

Sudesh Kumari and others ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 3.

Mr. Alekh Singh Mehta, Advocate for Mr. Tarun Vir Singh Lehal, Advocate for respondents no. 4 to 6.

Surinder Gupta, J.

This is appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the award dated 07.10.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (later referred to as 'the Tribunal'), awarding compensation of `46,30,000/- to claimants for death of Saroop Singh (later referred to as 'the deceased').

As the appellant has only raised the issue of multiplier applied by the Tribunal while computing the amount of compensation, detailed facts of the case are being skipped for the sake of brevity. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 11 while computing amount of compensation towards loss of dependency. The deceased was a Sanitary Inspector in Municipal Council, Sujanpur and was about 53 years of age. Jitender Kumar 2018.02.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

FAO No. 1737 of 2015 -2In due course he would have retired from service, as such, split multiplier is required to be applied in this case.

In case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009)6 SCC 121, a Division Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down law about applicability of multiplier and observations in case of Sarla Verma (supra) has been further approved by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 1009.

In view of settled proposition of law, multiplier applied in this case is appropriate and calls for no change. No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for appellant.

This appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed. February 20, 2018 ( SURINDER GUPTA) jk JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Jitender Kumar 2018.02.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh