FAO No.969 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.969 of 1992 Date of Decision. 04.02.2011 Jai Singh Dhaliwal son of Shri Harnam Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Union of India through the Home Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. M.B. Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ashwin Bansal, Advocate and Ms. Kamla Malik, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None for remaining respondents. 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.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of the son of the claimants, who was a Deputy Superintendent of Police in C.R.P.F. On the date of accident, he was travelling in the vehicle belonging to CRPF and the vehicle was driven rashly by the driver of the Gyspy in which the deceased was travelling. It dashed against the truck and the justification of the driver was that it was a foggy day and the visibility was poor and he could not see the truck going in front and therefore, an accident took place inevitably. The Tribunal found that the driver of the Gypsy that belonged to the Union was responsible for the accident and assessed the compensation at Rs.1,20,000/-. 2. I will hold the liability of the Union as established, taking the FAO No.969 of 1992 2 finding of the Tribunal as having become final and will re-assess the compensation on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 as explained by a claim at the instance of the appearance in Shakti Devi Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. JT(2010) 13 SC 103. The income proved on record was that he was earning Rs.3500/- and he was in CRPF having a sure prospect of increase in salary. I will take, therefore, his average salary to be Rs.5250/- and make a deduction of 50% and take the monthly contribution to the family at Rs.2625/-. I will adopt a multiplier of 11, for the age established at the trial was that the mother was 56 years of age and father was 62 years of age. The loss of dependence will, therefore, be at Rs.3,46,500/- and I will make an addition of Rs.5,000/- towards loss to estate and funeral expenses and hold the total compensation payable at Rs.3,51,500/-. The amount in excess over what has been determined by the Tribunal will attract interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be on the Union. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 04, 2011 Pankaj*