SATWANT KAUR Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I . The case that required straight forward adjudication. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation at the instance of the claimants for death of a male aged 33 years who was a teacher employed in a government school earning Rs. 5529. The claimants were widow, two daughters, son and mother of the deceased. I had directed the appellants to make a proposal for settlement on the lines of compensation regime laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarala Verma v DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Reshma Kumari v Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65. The insurance company has shown utter insensitivity to the directions and would not come up with response to the proposal given by the insurer. Making a provision for 50% increase as the prospect of increase, deducting ¼ th amount for personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 16, the loss of dependence shall be (5916 x 12 x 16) ' 11,35,872. The appellants have proposed a further amount of Rs. 20,000 for damage to the vehicle, Rs.1,00,000 for loss of love and affection for children and Rs. 50,000 for loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000 towards funeral expenses. The total amount assessed as payable on the date of petition is Rs. 13,15,872. II. The conduct of the insurer before this court

(2.) The insurance company has been grossly unfair to force an adjudication to be made when the scales proposed are as per the established principles of the Supreme Court decisions. It can be noticed that there is a general upward trend in maintaining compensation amounts by the supreme court and the suggestions have been that courts shall not be niggardly in awarding compensation. Not to be equated as a lottery, when the scales proposed are even less than what the Supreme Court has suggested (in Vimal Kanwar v Kishore Dhan (2013) 7 SCC 476 the suggestion was Rs. 2 lacs for loss of love and affection and Rs. 1 lac for loss of consortium), the insurance company must act with grace and not waste the time of the court and defy the court to pass any order it pleased.

(3.) I accordingly allow for 12% interest on the additional amount and direct that the payment is distributed equally among the claimants. I impose costs of Rs.25,000 against the insurer. III. Judicial discourse that has become inevitable