IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1774 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: February 11, 2011 SHINDER KAUR & ORS. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS AMRIK SINGH & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: NONE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1, 2, 4 AND 5. MR. NEERAJ KHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR MR. RAVINDER ARORA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The claim is for enhancement of compensation for death of a person who was aged 30 years. The claimants were wife, three minor children and parents. The evidence given by the wife was that the husband has earning through agriculture `4000/- per month. He also was doing some hotel business from which he was earning `1500/-. Her wife also stated that he was doing a diary business for augmenting his income. There were two other private witnesses, one, who spoke about the diary business that the deceased was doing and yet another, who spoke about his agricultural earnings. The Tribunal took the income to be `1000/- per month. He was supporting a large family of 5 persons and in my view, even if there had been no documentary evidence, the Tribunal must have seen that there was sufficient oral evidence to say that he was not a wastrel, but he was active in his own way. I would, therefore, make an estimation that he would have earned `3000/- per month and would make a provision for 1/4th for personal expenses and take the contribution to the family at `2250/-. He was 30 years of age and I would adopt a multiplier of 17 to take the loss of earning capacity at `4,59,000/-. I would provide for `5000/- towards loss of consortium and make a further provision for love and affection for the minor children @ `2500/- for each child. There shall be an addition of `2500/- towards loss of estate and `2500/- for funeral expenses. The total amount of compensation would be `4,76,500/-. The tribunal had already assessed `1,34,000/- and the amount of in excess shall bear interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 2. The liability shall be in the same manner as provided by the Tribunal. It would mean that the insurance company shall be liable to make the payment and will have a right of recovery against the insured-owner. 3. The additional compensation shall be distributed equally amongst the wife and children only. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. 4. There is no representation for the appellants and the Registry shall send a copy of the order directly to the appellants. February 11, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE