FAO No.5178 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5178 of 2010 Date of Decision. 25.01.2011 Smt. Ompati widow of Fateh Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Jagruk Singh son of Shri Tulsi Ram Garwal and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Ashok Arora, Advocate for the appellants. 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. Delay of 55 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of a person, who was aged 36 years. The claimants were the widow mother and two major brothers. The contention was that he was a Cleaner earning Rs.5,000/- per month. There was a statement of the owner of the truck, who had stated that his income was Rs.2500/-. The Tribunal took the monthly income to be Rs.3000/-, provided for a deduction of 50% and adopted a multiplier of 12 suitable to the age of the claimant, who was aged 70 years. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the family was large and the Tribunal must have provided for a larger contribution instead of deducting 50% for personal expenses. The deduction for personal expenses for a person, who is a bachelor has come through a FAO No.5178 of 2010 -2- dispensation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 and therefore, I will not find any fault in the manner of such deduction provided for by the Tribunal. Even as regards the multiplier for the mother-claimant, who was 70 years of age, the choice of multiplier as 12 cannot be said to be low. On the other hand, it is even on the higher side. Learned counsel also states that there are other claimants also. The other claimants are major brothers and they cannot be said to be dependents on the deceased. The overall compensation determined by the Tribunal at Rs.2,40,000/- cannot be said to be wrong. It accords with evidence and it is just under the circumstances. 3. The award is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 25, 2011 Pankaj*