FAO No.3651 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3651 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:20.05.2011 Punjab Roadways Depot Pathankot, Distt. Gurdaspur through its General Manager (owner of bus No.PB-06F-2837) and others .......Appellants Versus Manvinder Kaur wd/o late Sh. Dilbagh Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. K.S. Sivia, DAG, Punjab for the appellants. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is against the assessment of compensation for Rs.30 lacs for death of a skilled worker in Merchant Navy aged 33 years. The claimants were the widow and two minor children. The claimants had given documents to show that he had been employed as an Assistant Driller at Momentum Engineer in Dubai initially and later he was promoted as Driller in the year 2005 and his income, which was originally $ 75/- per day, had increased to $ 162.40 per day. Later, he was promoted as a Tool Pusher and he used to earn $ 10,000 per month. The claimants had filed passport to show his overseas employment and the bank passbooks had also been filed to show remittances for the months, which were before his death. In the month of February, 2007 FAO No.3651 of 2011(O&M) -2- an amount of Rs.1,89,026/- has been deposited, in the month of March 2007, a sum of Rs.1,68,435/- has been deposited and in the month of April 2007, a sum of Rs.1,87,614/- has been deposited. The other documents, which had been filed were C5 to C21, which showed that he was drawing a salary in the range of $ 2975-5160 per month. The Tribunal observed that the claimants had not filed documents for remittances for all the months prior to his death and the claimants had filed only remittances in bank for three months prior to his death. Assuming the worst against the petitioners that three months constituted even the entire year's contributioin to the family, that amount shall still be in the range of Rs.4.5 lacs and if I assume that even Rs.1.5 lacs must go towards tax and take the average annual contribution to be Rs.3 lacs and adopt a multiplier of 15 suitable to the age of the deceased, the amount of compensation that would become payable, will be around Rs.45 lacs, which is higher than Rs.30 lacs, which was determined by the Tribunal. 3. Now we have come by dispensations where the Courts have approached the issue of compensation from the point of view of the prospect of increase of income in secured employment. Learned counsel for the State would contend that the Tribunal had not made the assessment properly and merely made an overall compensation to the tune of Rs.30 lacs. While I am not satisfied with the manner of disposal made by the Tribunal, I can never say that even the assessment which was made, is more than what the case deserved. I have already pointed out that even assuming of the worst against the petitioners and taking the proof of income which was produced before the Court as FAO No.3651 of 2011(O&M) -3- inadequate, there is no reason to suspect that for a skilled worker in a Merchant Navy, who was getting salary in US Dollars and had a fairly long tenure and having regard to the fact that the family had been the beneficiary of large remittances each month, I would not find the assessment of compensation made at Rs.30 lacs as high or unreasonable. 4. I confirm the award and dismiss the appeal. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 20, 2011 Pankaj*