VEENA MAHALDAR Vs. R K KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present cross- objections, registered at No. 67 of 2001, in F.A.O. No. 488 of 2000, have been referred to a larger Bench, i.e., Division Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, who while sitting as single Judge, even though deciding the main appeal, i.e., F.A.O. No. 488 of 2000 felt that question involved in the cross-objections needed to be considered by Division Bench. From the judgment of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, it appears that when F.A.O. No. 488 of 2000 and cross- objections were being heard together, a question was raised by the claimants who filed the present cross-objections, that the deceased being an engineer in government service, was likely to reach higher levels in service career, both in terms of status and salary and, therefore, his likely future increase in salary/income was also required to be taken into account, while determining the multiplicand, i.e., to say the figure of annual loss of dependency.

(2.) HON'ble Chief Justice not only referred the cross-objections to the larger Bench for looking into the question, whether the likely increase in income in future is to be taken into account, but also ordered that the cross-objections be heard and decided by a Division Bench. So, we will not only be answering the aforesaid question, but also deciding the cross-objections by the present judgment, the main appeal having already been disposed of.

(3.) THE owner, i.e., R.K. Khanna felt aggrieved by the order that interest pendente lite was to be paid by him. So he filed appeal. No appeal was filed on behalf of the insurance company. Claimants filed cross-objections seeking enhancement in the quantum of compensation. It was stated that deceased was a young man and he had very bright career as an engineer and had he survived till the attainment of age of superannuation, he would have seen many promotions and also huge increase in salary. Claimants also assailed the award on the ground that nothing had been awarded to the widow on account of loss of consortium and also no compensation had been awarded on account of the conventional damages.