FAO No.1992 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1992 of 1998 DATE OF DECISION: March 1, 2011 MANJIT KAUR AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS DARSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS ...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. RAM CHANDER, ADVCOATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2. MR. V.RAMSWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation of claim for death of a Electrician with the State Electricity Board. He was 43 years of age and was drawing `4510/- as income. The claimants were widow, three minor children and parent. The Tribunal adopted 1/3rd deduction, applied a multiplier of 10 and assessed the compensation of `3,09,000/-. 2. Learned counsel argues that the Pay Commission recommendation subsequent to his death had provided for an enhancement of salary and that should be taken into account. The prospect of increase through Pay Commission recommendation was considered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported as 2009 6 SCC 121, but with a view to provide for a uniform approach through India by the various Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected a plea for factoring Pay Commission recommendations that had not FAO No.1992 of 1998 -2- come into effect on the date of death and suggested instead an increase of 30% as future prospect for persons in the age between 41 to 50. I will adopt a same course and provide for increase by 30%. Learned counsel states that the deceased also had more than 5 acres of land and his own managerial skills for his agricultural land had not been considered at all. There ought to have been appropriate evidence for the value of such services. In any event having regard to the fact that he was a full time employee with the Electricity Board, the value of the services will have to, therefore, be appropriately reduced than in a normal circumstances if his only avocation was agriculture. I am prepared to provide for an additional amount of `750/- per month and provide for a 1/4th deduction instead of 1/3rd. I will adopt a multiplier of 14 which will yield to `8,33,328/-. 3. I will also provide for the conventional heads of claim and tabulate the compensation as follows:- Fatal Accidents Age: 43 Occupation Electrician Claimants Widow, 3 minor children, parent Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court Sr.No. Amount ` Amount ` 1. Annual Income 4510 4510 2. Add % of increase 30% 5863+750= 6613 3. Deduction (1/2,1/3, 1/4, 1/5) 1/4 4. Multiplicand - Tax 4959x12 5. Multiplier 10 14 6. Loss of Dependence 8,33,238 7. Medical Expenses 8. Loss of Consortium + loss of love and affection 12,500 9. Loss to Estate 5000 FAO No.1992 of 1998 -3- Fatal Accidents 10. Damage 3000 11. Funeral Expenses + Transportation 10,000 10000 Total 3,09,000/- 8,60,738/- 4. The amount in excess over what has been determined by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 5. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. 6. The additional amount shall be distributed equally amongst the widow and children. 7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. March 1, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE