Ishpal Singh Paramjit Singh and Others vs Simla Devi and Others

K.P. Bhandari, J.—Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent objector has submitted that the Tribunal was in error in deducting the gratuity amount from the income of the deceased for determining the proper multiplier. Reliance is placed by him in support of his contention on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Bhagat Singh Sohan Singh v. Smt. Om Sharma and Ors. 1983 P.L.R. 1. A perusal of this judgment shows that while determining the loss to the state such benefits like insurance, provident fund, family pension, gratuity cannot be taken into a consideration. In view the law laid down by the Full Bench, the Tribunal was in error in taking into consideration the amount of gratuity.

The other point raised by the Counsel for the respondent-objector is that the Tribunal should have applied multiplier of 20 while determining the loss of the estate. Now, it is well settled by the series of decision of this Court that normally the Tribunal should apply multiplier of 16. I think that multiplier of 16 should be applied in this case for determining the loss to the estate from the income of the deceased. The amount payable under the gratuity will be excluded and a multiplier of 16 will be applied and compensation be paid accordingly. The claimant will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 15 per cent in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rukmani Devi v. Om Prakash 1991 A.C.J. 3, from the date of the application till the date of its payment. I also followed the judgment of Rukmani Devi''s case (supra) in Mala Aggarwal Vs. Jagdish Kumar and Others, .

In this view of the matter, the cross-objections are excepted with costs and the relief as indicated above is granted. F.A.O. No. 141 of 1985 stands dismissed with costs.