FAO No.3564 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3564 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 02.02.2011 Jai Bhagwan Sharma son of Preet Singh Sharma and another ......Appellants Versus Manjeet son of Shri Balwan Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. In a fire accident at the Record Section of Civil Revision/FAO Branch of this Court on 30.01.2011, several files were burnt. 2. The registry has reported that the file is not available and it is likely that the papers connected with the case have been consumed in fire. Learned counsel for the appellant has furnished copy of all the relevant papers connected with the case. The papers submitted shall substitute the papers that are unavailable and shall constitute for all practical purposes as the records of the court. Papers are duly reconstructed in the above fashion. 3. Delay of 128 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. 4. The appeal is for enhancement of the claim for death of 18 FAO No.3564 of 2010 (O&M) -2- years old person by the parents. The father was said to be 48 years of age. The Tribunal took the notional income at Rs.3000/-, provided for a 1/3rd deduction, applied for a multiplier of 12 and provided for a compensation of Rs.2,98,000/- including Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses, transportation etc. Even in the manner of deduction for personal expenses, the Tribunal has provided for 1/3rd when the dispensation through Sarla Verma V. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 suggests a deduction of 50%. If a 50% deduction were to be made and a 13 multiplier were to be adopted, even then the amount what is now determined will be higher since a 1/3rd deduction alone had been made. The overall compensation determined by the Tribunal at Rs.2,98,000/-, in my view, accords with evidence and the law laid down by this Hon'ble High Court and would find no reason to interfere. 5. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 02, 2011 Pankaj*