Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baleshwari And Ors on 24 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055155
1
FAO-1535-2024 2024:PHHC:055155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-1535-2024 (O&M)
Reserved on : 02.04.2024
Pronounced on : 24.04.2024
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ....Appellant
VERSUS
BALESHWARI AND OTHERS ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The only challenge in the present appeal to the award dated
09.01.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh is
on the ground that a split multiplier method ought to have been applied by
the Tribunal while awarding the compensation to the claimants.
2. The facts of the case have not been disputed by learned counsel
for the appellant-Insurance Company and hence the same are not being
reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has
contended that since the date of birth of the deceased, namely, Ragbir @
Raghbir Singh was 15.02.1966 and he was to retire at the age of 58 years on
28.02.2024, the deceased was only left with about one and a half year of
service from the date of the accident i.e. 15.10.2022 and hence while
assessing the compensation a split multiplier method should have been
applied by the Tribunal. It is further the contention that had the deceased
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055155
FAO-1535-2024 2024:PHHC:055155
been alive he would have got the monthly pension and hence the Tribunal
has erred in not deducting the same from the monthly income of the
deceased. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company has relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Chameli Mittal & Anr. vs. M/s Chahal Bus Service
& Ors. [FAO-2563-2008 decided on 18.12.2023].
4. Heard.
5. The only grievance of the appellant-Insurance Company in the
present case is that the determination of compensation ought to have been
made after applying the split multiplier method as the deceased was left with
about one and a half year of service as on the date of the accident. The
Supreme Court in the case of R. Valli & Ors. vs. Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation Ltd. [2022(1) RCR (Civil) 867] has 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."
6. Further, in the case of N. Jayasree & Ors. vs.
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR
(Civil) 642] the Supreme Court, after considering the judgment in Reshma
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055155
FAO-1535-2024 2024:PHHC:055155
Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. [(2013) 9 SCC 65] and in K.R.
Madhusudhan & Ors. vs. Administrative Officer & Anr. [(2011) 4 SCC
689] held as under :
"28. From the above discussion it is clear that at the time
of calculation of the income, the Court has to consider
the actual income of the deceased and addition should be
made to take into account future prospects. Further,
while the evidence in a given case may indicate a
different percentage of increase, standardization of the
addition for future prospects should be made to avoid
different yardsticks being applied or different methods of
calculation being adopted. In Pranay Sethi, the
Constitution Bench has directed addition of 15% of the
salary in case the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years as a thumb rule, where a deceased had a
permanent job. In view of the above, the High Court was
not justified in applying split multiplier in the instant
case."
7. In view of the law settled by the Supreme Court, the judgment
relied upon by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would be of
no avail and the only argument of the appellant-Insurance Company that
compensation in the present case ought to have been determined after
applying the split multiplier method cannot be accepted.
8. No other point has been argued.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055155
FAO-1535-2024 2024:PHHC:055155
9. In view of the discussion above, the appeal being devoid of any
merits is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed off.
24.04.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Aman Jain/Ankur JUDGE
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
