FAO No.123 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.123 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.10.2012 Smt. Sharda & others ...Appellants Versus Karambir & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.P. Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.5. Rajan Gupta, J. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the tribunal, claimants have preferred instant appeal before this court. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the deceased was 20 years of age at the time of his death. Tribunal has granted total compensation of Rs.3,88,000/- which is on the lower side. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that adequate compensation has been awarded to the appellants for the death of deceased Gaurav. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears that accident took place on 19th June, 2009 in which one Gaurav died. Claim petition was preferred by his legal heirs before the tribunal. After the court came to the conclusion that offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner, it observed that FAO No.123 of 2012 2 deceased was a student and he was to start earning at the age of 24 years. It was expected that he was to earn approximately Rs.7000/- per month on getting some employment. For four years his dependency was to be 50% to his mother and thereafter 1/4th for ten years. In this way, the tribunal assessed annual dependency as Rs.84,000/- (7000 x 12) and applying the multiplier of 4 and dependency as 50%, the compensation was assessed as Rs.1,68,000/-. Thereafter taking dependency as 1/4th and applying the multiplier of 10, compensation was worked out as Rs.2,10,000/-. Total amount of Rs.3,78,800/- was awarded to the claimants. Rs.5000/- each was granted on account of loss of estate and last rites, final figure being Rs.3,88,000/-. I am of the considered view that compensation has been granted after taking all the factors into consideration. No interference in appellate jurisdiction of this court is, thus, warranted. The appeal is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 5.10.2012 'rajpal'