FAO No.2273 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2273 of 1995 Date of Decision.09.12.2010 2. FAO No.2274 of 1995 Mukta Sharma widow of late Rajnish Chander Sharma and another ......Appellants Versus Kuldip Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. N.S. Bawa, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the insurance company. 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. The appeals are for enhancement of compensation for death and injury suffered in a motor accident. FAO No.2273 of 1995 relates to claimants for compensation for death of the 1st claimant's husband, who was working in a Defence Accounts Department, drawing a salary of Rs.2103/- and the accident had taken place four months after the marriage of the 1st claimant with the deceased. The posthumous child of the deceased is the second claimant. The Tribunal took the income at Rs.1500/- provided for extent of dependence at Rs.18,000/- and assessed a compensation of Rs.2,88,000/-. If the case were to be reappraised on the basis of the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in FAO No.2273 of 1995 -2- Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121, I would provide for 50% increase and take the average income to be Rs.3154/-. I would provide for a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses and take the 2/3rd payable for extent of dependence per month. I will adopt a multiplier of 18 and determine loss due to extent of dependence at Rs.4,54,176/-. I will also add Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the wife and Rs.5,000/- for love and affection for a posthumous child. I will provide for another sum of Rs.5,000/- for loss to estate and Rs.2500/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the total amount that will become payable would be Rs.4,71,676/-. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The additional amount of compensation shall be shared between the widow and child only. 2. As regards the quantum for compensation for injuries, the 1st claimant had fracture of her clavicle bone and she had stated that she had incurred an expenditure of Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal provided an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and determined a compensation of Rs.20,000/-. I find no reason to take a different view than how the Tribunal dealt with the case. 3. The appeal in FAO No.2273 of 1995 is allowed to the above extent and the appeal in FAO No.2274 of 1995 is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE December 09, 2010 Pankaj*