FAO No.675 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.675 of 1995 DATE OF DECISION: December 22, 2010 SURJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS PREM SINGH AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. D.S. PHERUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR.INDERJEET SHARMA, ADVOCATE AND MR. PARDEEP BEDI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) The claim is for enhancement of compensation for death of the son of the claimant who was 22 years of age. The Tribunal had taken the income providing for a prospective increase at Rs.3000/-, the total extent of dependency at Rs.1000/- and adopted a multiplier of 10. I will apply the formula suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and provide for 50% deduction and take the extent of dependency at Rs.1500/- and take a multiplier suitable to the younger of the two claimants, namely, the mother who is said to be 51 years of age. The multiplier shall be 11 and the extent of dependency will be Rs.1,98,000/-. I will provide for additional amount of Rs.12,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of love and affection for the mother and enhance the compensation to Rs.2,10,000/-. FAO No.675 of 1995 -2- The Tribunal had awarded Rs.1,20,000/-. The amount in excess over what has been determined shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. In view of the finding rendered in FAO No.674 of 1995, the liability shall be initially on the insurance company and the issue where it will have a right of recovery against the owner insured, will depend on the outcome of the adjudication after remand of the case, namely, whether the driving licence was genuine or not. If the driving licence was genuine, the insurance company will have no right of recovery and if it is otherwise, the insurance company shall have a right of recovery against the insured owner. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. December 22, 2010 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE