FAO No. 4929 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4929 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision March 9, 2011 Jeuna Ram and others ....... Petitioners Versus Harvinder Singh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M. B. Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2. None for respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?Yes K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. In a fire accident at the Record Section of Civil Revision/FAO Branch of this Court on 30.1.2011, several files were burnt. 2. The Registry has reported that the file is not available and it is likely that the papers connected with the case have been consumed in fire. Learned counsel for the appellant has furnished copy of all the relevant papers connected with the case. The papers submitted shall substitute the papers that are unavailable and shall constitute for all practical purposes as the records of the Court. Papers are duly reconstructed in the above fashion. FAO No. 4929 of 2009(O&M) 2 3. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for a case where the deceased was 24 years of age and it was claimed that he used to earn `40,000/- per annum in the work of movie making and as a photographer. The claimants are parents and two younger sisters. The father himself was an agricultural labourer. 4. The application had been filed under Section 163-A and it was imperative that scales as provided under Schedule-II itself are alone taken. Though some mistakes in Schedule II had been pointed out by the Supreme Court in its judgment USTRC Vs. Tirlok Chandra 1996 ACJ 621 it did not still rule that when a petition is filed under Schedule II, the formula provided by law could not be discarded. Among the earlier decisions was a decision in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shrilaxman Iyer and another 2004 1 PLR 446 that adopted the age of the parents to be relevant for the choice of multiplier. A recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakti Devi Vs. New India Insurance Company JT (2010) 13 SC 103 applied the same yardstick and suggested even while interpreting the earlier decision in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121 that in the case of parents the appropriate choice of multiplier would be dependent on the age of the parents only. All these pronouncements, I would understand, set out the general principle that is applicable. However, another parallel view would suggest that in cases of claims under Section 163-A, there shall be no latitude of discretion left to the Judge to deviate from the scales brought through the Schedule itself. The Schedule has not been amended in spite of some mistakes pointed out in Tirlok Chandra’s case (supra). The recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. S. Somanathan Vs. District Insurance Officer & another 2011 (2) Scale 473 was dealing with a case of a claim by the parents and a young sibling. Relying on the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra) the Bench stated that choice of multiplier shall be dependent only on the age of the deceased and more particularly so, when one of the claimants was herself a young dependent and FAO No. 4929 of 2009(O&M) 3 there was nothing wrong in adopting a higher value of multiplier. In this case, I find that the deceased was aged 25 years and the evidence was that he was supporting the family of parents and also two younger sisters. The position of a brother to younger sisters and the burden that such a person shares along with the parents in Indian social conditions is fairly well known. If there was an exception to be made for applying a multiplier which incidentally would also be multiplier suggested through Schedule II, I will take this case to be such an instance to provide for a multiplier to be dependent on the age of the deceased. I will take therefore the multiplier of 17 and adopt the compensation as per the table below: Age Occupation Claimants Heads of claim Tribunal High Court 1 Income `3000 `3000 2 Deduction 1/3rd 1/3rd 3 Multiplicand `2000 `2000 X12 4 Multiplier 10 17 5 Loss of dependency `4,08,000/- 6 Loss to estate `2500/- 7 Funeral expenses `10,000/- `2,000/- Total `4,12,500/- 5. The amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The additional amount shall be distributed amongst the claimants viz., the father, mother and sisters in the ratio of 1:2:1:1. 6. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 9, 2011 archana FAO No. 4929 of 2009(O&M) 4