FAO No.2746 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** FAO No.2746 of 1999 Date of decision : 11.10.2010 Smt. Geeta and another ........Appellants Vs. Joginder and others .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present:- Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the appellants None for respondents No.1 & 2 Mr.Suvir Dewan, Advocate, for respondent No.3 – Insurance Company --- K.KANNAN, J (ORAL) :- 1. The claim in this petition is for compensation seeking enhancement for death of a boy who was aged 20 years, was said to be employed at a shop and there was evidence through employer PW-3, who stated that he was paying Rs.2200/-. The Tribunal applied 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses and applied a multiplier of 13 for compensation claimed by the parents. 2. There have been various approaches to determine FAO No.2746 of 1999 -2- compensation for death. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with it in 'Sarla Verma V. DTC, (2009) 6 ACC 121' and has provided a formula for a certitude in approach in cases of death and of all categories of persons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court applied a deduction of 50% and provided for a multiplier suitable to the aged deceased for death cases of bachelers. In 'UP Road Transport Corp. v. Tarlok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC)' the Hon'ble Supreme Court found defects in Schedule 2 in merely providing for the age of the deceased as relevant instead of the age of the claimants when they happened to be parents or persons elder to the deceased. It said that it was likely that there would be a contribution to parents with prospects of marriage and family and where the years of dependence themselves ought to have been reduced. On the basis of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarlok Chandra (supra) there have been other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which have taken the multiplier with reference to the age of the claimants as the relevant factor. The Tribunal has adopted a hybrid formula of taking a 1/3rd contribution provided in Schedule 2 and adopted the multiplier as provided in certain other decisions relating with the age of the claimants being treated as relevant for choice of the multiplier. 3. In my view, in a case where the income of the deceased fell short of Rs.40,000/-, it would be appropriate to apply the FAO No.2746 of 1999 -3- statutory provisions themselves for that would eliminate arbitrariness in approach. If the evidence relating to income was Rs.2200/- as spoken through the witness PW-3, I would take 1/3rd deduction and take the contribution to the family @ 1400/- P.M. and adopt a multiplier of 16 for the boy who was aged 20 years. The amount of dependence is Rs.2,68,802/- and I will add the amount of Rs.4500/- towards loss to estate and funeral expenses. In all, the total amount of compensation payable would be Rs.2,74,702/-. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,95,200/-. The amount in excess over what was already determined by the Tribunal, will attract interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of payment. 4. The claimant's sister is also one of the parties. The case was decided in the year 1999 and I would provide this enhancement to go only to the parents i.e. Claimants No.1 & 2. 5. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. (K.KANNAN ) JUDGE 11th Oct., 2010 akm