AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Kannan, J.—Both the appeals are connected arising out of the same accident. FAO No. 1159 of 1989 is the instance of the claimants for enhancement and FAO No. 269 of 1990 is by the owner of the vehicle which is involved in the accident, against the award passed.
The deceased was a Deputy Secretary in Law Department in Haryana Government and drawing an income of Rs. 6030/-. The claimants were widow and unmarried daughter and two of the married daughters were cited as proforma Respondents.
In the manner of determining the compensation, the Tribunal took 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses and took the contribution to the family at Rs. 4000/-, made a further deduction of 20% for a lump-sum payment in a case it was adopting a multiplier of 10. A lump-sum payment was adopted in some cases only where the compensation was determined by the use of multiplier to the number of years left for normal life span. In a case where the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 10 there was no need for making any deduction for a lump-sum payment. The choice of multiplier of 10 itself factors such a requirement to discount for premature lump-sum payment.
While retaining the extent of dependency at Rs. 4000/-, I would make no further deduction and adopt a multiplier of 10 as already undertaken by the Tribunal and the loss of dependency would be Rs. 4,80,000/-. I would provide for loss of consortium to the wife, loss of love and affection and also add to the conventional heads of claim for loss to estate and funeral expenses and make an addition of Rs. 20,000/-to round of the compensation at Rs. 5 lacs. The amount determined over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal will also attract 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The distribution of the amount shall be in the same manner as found by the Tribunal and the liability amongst the Respondents shall also be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal.
The appeal by the claimants FAO No. 1159 of 1989 is allowed and the appeal FAO No. 269 of 1990 by the owner of the vehicle is dismissed.