FAO No. 832 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 832 of 2010 Date of decision April 18, 2011 Sunita and others ....... Appellants Versus Satbir Singh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. D. P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate **** 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. There is a delay of 366 days in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would state that there was no proper explanation for filing appeal with a delay of 366 days. The reason given in the appeal for such a delay is that the appellants were arranging for resources for incurring expenses to file the appeal. This learned counsel would point out that it cannot be true, for the amount as awarded by the Tribunal had been immediately deposited and this was merely an excuse. I will not allow this issue of delay to take merely an excuse. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, FAO No. 832 of 2010 2 application is allowed. Delay of 366 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.249 of 2011 3. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a male aged 26 years. The claimants were widow, two minor children and aged parents. The evidence was that the deceased was coming back in a goods vehicle with his wares namely bangles for sale. He was said to be engaged in the business of selling bangles and against the evidence given before the Tribunal that he was earning about `10,000/- per month, the Tribunal took the income to be `2,700/-. Learned counsel states that the assessment of income is grossly low. If he was running a store and earning income of about `10,000/- he ought to have had some accounts in evidence of his turn over in his business. He had produced no documentary proof. I would go with an assessment made by the Tribunal as the basis for I have no better resources to conjecture income of how much more it could have been. 4. The Tribunal has taken a multiplier of 16 when the multiplier could have been 17 as suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121. The loss of dependency must have been, therefore, assessed at `4,13,100/-. Towards conventional heads of claim, the Tribunal has awarded `5,000/- for funeral expenses and transportation which I will retain. I will make a further provision of `15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife and `5,000/- to each one of the minor children for loss of love and affection. I will make an additional amount of `2500/- towards loss of estate. The over all compensation therefore will be `4,40,600/- 5. I will take the delay in filing the appeal to be a relevant factor in the matter of awarding interest. I will, therefore, reduce the period of interest from the date of institution of the petition to be FAO No. 832 of 2010 3 substituted as from the date of decision before the Tribunal till the date of payment. This additional component of interest shall be at 6% on the additional amount and it shall be from 30.5.2008 till the date of payment. The distribution of the amount amongst the claimants shall be in the same proportion as was made by the Tribunal amongst the claimants. 6. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 18, 2011 archana