LPA No. 247 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 247 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.02.2010 PRTC Patiala and others ....Appellants. Versus Gurmail Singh and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Harsha Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dated 17.9.2001, whereby FAO No.1702 of 1996 was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, FAO No.1702 of 1996 was filed in this Court and the same was referred to the Permanent Lok Adalat. On 11.1.2001, the Permanent Lok Adalat had given the award. Against the award given by the Permanent Lok Adalat, objections were filed by respondents No.1 and 2. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.9.2001 rejected the objections filed by respondents No.1 and 2 and confirmed the award dated 11.1.2001 given by the Permanent Lok Adalat and disposed of FAO No.1702 of 1996 in terms of the aforesaid award. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order LPA No. 247 of 2002 2 dated 17.9.2001 passed by learned Single Judge. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that age of the deceased was 51 years, hence multiplier of 15 is not correct. Multiplier ought to have been 11. He further argued that in the present case, claimants are brother and sisters of the deceased, who are major, hence cannot be called as dependent on the deceased. Learned counsel further argued that the Permanent Lok Adalat as well as learned Single Judge, wrongly awarded interest of 12%. It should not be more than 6%. 5. Though the submission on the issue of multiplier may have required consideration, in view of the fact that compensation has been paid, stay having been declined, we refrain from interfering with the impugned finding. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 24.02.2010 sk.