The New India Assurance Company Ltd v. Amarjit Kaur And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 04.07.2022 Date of Decision : 06.07.2022 The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

....Appellant

VERSUS

Amarjit Kaur & Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present:

Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vralika Bassi, Advocate for the appellant. ALKA SARIN, J.

CM-21429-CII-2019 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 27 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed off.

FAO-6334-2019 The challenge in the present appeal by the appellant-Insurance Company is to the limited extent that a split multiplier i.e. one multiplier upto the date of retirement and another multiplier after the date of retirement of the deceased ought to have been applied in the present case. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-insurance company would contend that the deceased was to retire after 81⁄2 years and would get

half the amount of salary as pension and, as such, a split multiplier ought to have been applied in the present case.

Heard.

In the present case the claimants had filed a claim petition on the ground that on 18.09.2017 Jaswant Singh had died in an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of one Tipper bearing No.PB-08-BU-9774. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence on the record, awarded a compensation of 59,43,595/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization. One of the arguments raised by the appellant-insurance company before the Tribunal was that a split multiplier ought to have been applied which was rejected in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Puttamma & Ors. Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy & Anr." [1 (2014) ACC 3 (SC)].

Recently in the case of "R. Valli & Ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited" [(2022)5 SCC 107] the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question whether a split multiplier ought to have been applied held the same to be impermissible. It was further held as under :

"11. Thus, we find that the method of determination of compensation applying two multipliers is clearly erroneous and run counter to the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi, affirming the judgment in Sarla Verma. Since the deceased was 54 years of age on the date of incident, therefore, the suitable multiplier would be 11

as per the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma approved by this Court in Pranay Sethi."

No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company.

Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Valli (supra), I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal and, hence, the present appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

( ALKA SARIN ) 06.07.2022 JUDGE Yogesh Sharma NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : YES/NO