FAO No.742 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.742 of 1993 Date of Decision. 24.12.2010 Jaspal Kaur and others ......Appellants Versus Jagdish Chand Rajput and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondents No.1, 2 and 4. Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the insurance company. 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. 1. This is an appeal against the award seeking for enhancement of compensation for death of a driver in Forest Department in the State of Haryana. The claimants are the wife, minor child and a younger brother of the deceased. The issue of negligence and liability to the insurance company are admitted and the appeal stands for consideration only as regards the quantum. 2. There was also an application along with the appeal seeking for an amendment in the petition for enhancement of demand from Rs.2 lacs to Rs.6 lacs. In this case, even at the time of assessment of compensation by the Tribunal, the Tribunal found that the claimants were entitled to an amount in excess of Rs.2 lacs but restricted to Rs.2 FAO No.742 of 1993 -2- lacs. Therefore, at the time when the application was brought up for hearing along with the appeal, the admission Court had referred the application to be taken up along with the appeal. 3. The matter requires consideration of quantum on known parameters and therefore, I do not think any hardship or prejudice could be caused by allowing the claimants to amend the claim for Rs.6 lacs in the manner in which it is sought. The whole case would require to be examined only in the light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 which sets out the definite indicators as to how the compensation shall be arrived in the case of death. The deceased was earning Rs.1637/- per month and I would provide for an increase of 50% as the possible increase in scales of pay and adopt a multiplier of 15 for a person, who was aged 34 years. I would also provide for Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.2500/- for the child for love and affection. I will add Rs.5,000/- for loss to estate and another Rs.2500/- for funeral expenses. In all, the sum that will become payable is stated as per the tabulation below:- FATAL ACCIDENTS Age 34 years Occupation Driver Claimants Wife, brother and minor child Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Sl. No. Amount (Rs) Amount (Rs.) 1 Income 1637 1637 2 Add, % of increase 30% / 50% 50'% (2456) 3 Average monthly income x 12 1100 29472 4 Deduction (1/2 , 1/3, 1/4, 1/5) 1/3rd 5 Multiplicand 13200 19648 6 Multiplier 16 15 7 Loss of dependence 294720 FAO No.742 of 1993 -3- FATAL ACCIDENTS 8 Medical Expenses & Transportation -- 9 Loss of Consortium & love and affection 7500 10 Loss to estate 11 Funeral expenses 5000 2500 Total 2,11,200 3,09,720 4. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The increased amount of compensation shall be distributed only between the wife and the child. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 24, 2010 Pankaj*