FAO No.216 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.216 of 1988 DATE OF DECISION: February 1, 2011 RUMI PANDEY AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS JASPIAR SINGH @ PIARA 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. O.P. HOSHIARPURI, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2. MR. DEEPAK SURI, ADVOCATE AND MR. D.D. BANSAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. MR. INDERJIT SHARMA, ADVOCATE AND MR. PARDEEP BEDI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4. NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for claimants who are representative of the deceased who was a passenger in a car. The accident had arisen out of a collision with the bus, which had been insured with New India Insurance Company, arrayed as respondent No.3 in the appeal. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal took the income at `2100/- and adopted a multiplier of 20 to determine the compensation of `3,40,000/-. FAO No.216 of 1988 -2- 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants states that the deceased was an income tax assessee and that he had several business interests. He was Director of M/s Shiv Textiles, Ludhiana, Director of M/s Himachal Steel Udyog Ltd., Ludhiana, Partner, APS Bricks, commission agent in M/s Wool India, Ludhiana and the tax returns for the year 1983-84 showed a steady increase from `18,528 to `22,858, to a further increase of `24,864 and still further increased to `38,080/- at the time when he died. With the prospect of gradual increase of salary for a person who was 32 years of age, I would take the annual income at `40,000/-. The claimants were the widow, two minor children and I, therefore, provide for 1/3rd deduction and take the contribution to the family at the remaining portion and adopt a multiplier of 16 instead of 20 as adopted by the Tribunal. The loss of dependency will be `4,26,666/-. I would add `5000/-towards loss of consortium to the wife and a further sum of `5000/- @ 2500/-to each of the minor children. An additional amount `5000/- shall added towards loss to estate and another `2500/- towards funeral expenses. The total amount of compensation is rounded of to `4,45,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded `3,40,000/- and the amount in excess shall draw interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The amount of increase shall be distributed equally amongst the claimants. 3. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. February 1, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE FAO No.216 of 1988 -3-