IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.982 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision:08.12.2010 Prakashini Devi (deceased) through her LRs and others ....Appellants versus Kuldip Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. R.M.Suri, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. ---- 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. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of the first claimant’s husband, who was a General Manager in Otech Engineers and Consultants Private Limited Company. He was aged 55 years and the claimants were the widow and two sons, one of whom was said to be mentally retarded. 2. Against the evidence led on behalf of the claimants that he was earning Rs.22,500/- per month, the Tribunal took from the evidence of the witness produced on behalf of the claimants that Rs.1,500/- was to be deducted every month towards tax to mean that his salary must have been only Rs.10,000/-. I have seen the document produced by the FAO No.982 of 1995 (O&M) - 2 - witness which says that he was being paid the consolidated salary of Rs.10,000/-, field reimbursement allowance of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2,500/- for house rent allowance. In evidence, this document was explained by a witness, who was responsible personnel from the employer and he stated that deceased was being paid Rs.22,500/- per month as salary under all the three heads. In the cross-examination, it was elicited for the 19 days that he had worked before his death for the month of April when he died he was paid Rs.6,333/- as consolidated salary and a like amount was also paid towards field reimbursement allowance, apart from the house rent allowance of Rs.2,500/-. The best of evidence could have been produced by the claimants by filing the income tax returns but I will not take that to be very relevant in this case since the Director of the Company had himself given a certificate relating to the income status and the Manager of the Company had given evidence as AW3 relating to the salary which was being paid to him in his capacity as General Manager. I will take, therefore, the gross salary of Rs.22,500/- and deduct Rs.1,150/- which was paid as tax and take the monthly salary of the deceased to be Rs.21,350/-. I would provide for a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses and take the contribution to the family at Rs.14,233/- and the yearly dependency to be Rs.1,70,800/-. The Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 10 for a person, who was aged 55 years and in terms of the judgment in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another-2009 ACJ 1298, I will take the multiplier to be 11. The total compensation would be Rs.18,78,800/-. I will add Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium and provide for another FAO No.982 of 1995 (O&M) - 3 - Rs.5,000/- towards loss to estate and Rs.2,500/- for funeral expenses. The amount in excess over what has been awarded already by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 3. The amount secured through the award shall be distributed amongst all the claimants. The appeal is allowed to the above extent and the right of enforcement for the claimants will be available against the Insurance Company. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 08.12.2010 sanjeev