High CourtsSingle Bench

Des Raj and Others vs Sh. Chetan Kaushik and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 28 May 2014 · Citation: (2014) 05 P&H CK 0441

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Kannan, J
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
FAO No. 1108 of 2004 (O & M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 365 words

K. Kannan, J.—The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of a male aged 54 years. He was a Baildar in PWD earning Rs. 3,553/- per month. The claimants were widow and four children. The tribunal assessed a compensation of Rs. 2 lacs for the claimants.

2.

I re-work the compensation and place it under several heads. The counsel for the appellants states that there must be 15% increase in salary earned by him. I will follow the dictum in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and make no provision for an increase beyond the age of 50 years. This principle of making provision for future increase was also considered in Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, . In Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, the Supreme Court was suggesting for an increase of 15% in case of private employments where the person could be working even beyond an age limit of 60 years. I cannot make any modification as regards the future increase. I rework the compensation and provide for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The various heads of compensation are tabulated as under:-

The total compensation payable shall be Rs. 6,63,750/-. The amount in excess of what has already been granted by the Tribunal shall attract interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. I notice that in this case the claimant has made a proposal to the Insurance Company for settlement of a modest sum of Rs. 4,84,568/- which is even less than the amount which this Court has given. It is unfortunate that the Insurance Company was not prepared to consider a proposal for settlement which is now surely possible within the parameters of determining compensation laid down through several decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court. I find the conduct of the insurer to be grossly deficient and uncooperative. I therefore impose costs of Rs. 25,000/- against the insurer.

3.

The amount determined shall be distributed equally amongst all the claimants. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.