FAO No. 183 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 183 of 2011 Date of decision April 4, 2011 Narinderjit Kaur and others ....... Appellants Versus Kashmira Singh and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate for the appellant. **** 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). CM No.864-CII of 2011 1. There is a delay of 73 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed. Delay of 73 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.183 of 2011 2. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a male aged 42 years. The claimants were widow and son. In proof of his income status, the claimant had produced Jamabandi which showed that the entries stood in the name of father of the deceased. His own contribution to father's land was taken as `4,000/- per month and the Tribunal after making a deduction of 1/3rd adopted a multiplier of 15 to determine the loss of dependency at `4,79,880/-. FAO No. 183 of 2011 2 3. The Tribunal added `5,000/- for loss of consortium, `2,000/- for funeral expenses and the total compensation awarded was `4,86,880/-. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that the income must have been taken at a higher value than what was provided by the Tribunal. I do not find it appropriate in a case where the deceased himself was not shown to be owner of any land and the value of services of his father's land was quantified at `4,000/- which in my view is proper. The counsel states that the deceased was treated for a short while before his death and body has been taking to his village,costing about `24,000/- and the same has not been provided in the award. I do not find any evidence as regards the same but even if ought to have been added. I find that the Court has adopted a multiplier of 15 in a case where in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121 the appropriate multiplier would have been only 14. The higher value of multiplier taken off sets the alleged error in the award for not providing medical and transport expenses. It is further argued that the Court has awarded interest at 6%. I do not find this to be the only ground for interference in the appeal when it is seen that the accident was of the year 2007 and the Tribunal disposed of the case on 12.4.2010. The assessment of interest at 6% is also therefore appropriate for there had been no undue delay in disposal of the case. The over all compensation of `4,86,880/- does not suffer from any vice for interference in appeal. 5. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 4, 2011 archana