FAO No.2244 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2244 of 1995 Date of Decision.09.12.2010 Devinder Kaur widow of Gurdit Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Tarsem Singh and others ......Respondents Present: None for the appellant. None for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate and Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5. 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 appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of a person and the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,92,000/- and the case has gone many a round before the Lok Adalat. I find that the case has not been settled and unfortunately today when the case is taken up, there is no representation on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant. Though I would be normally inclined to dismiss the case for default of appearance and non-prosecution, I find that the case ought not to suffer for what I perceive to be a negligence on the part of the counsel and not on the part of the party. 2. Learned counsel for the insurance company is present and I proceed to dispose of the case on merits on the availability of FAO No.2244 of 1995 -2- materials, having regard to the certitude that has obtained through statutory interventions providing for a method of determination of compensation for death of persons under Schedule II and in situations where the income is even more than Rs.40,000/-, I would adopt a formula in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121. The deceased was said to be an agriculturist having 10 acres of land and the Tribunal took the income at Rs.1500/- per month, took the dependency of family at Rs.1,000/-, adopted a multiplier of 16 and determined a compensation of Rs.1,92,000/-. For a person, who had agricultural land to the extent of 10 killas and where the loss of managerial skills, I would estimate his income to be Rs.3,000/- per month in the manner undertaken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and others (2003) 7 SCC 484. I would provide for 1/4th deduction for personal expenses and take Rs.2250/-as the extent of dependency of the family. He was aged 40 years and I would adopt a multiplier of 15 and determine the extent of loss of dependence at Rs.4,05,000/-. I would add Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife and Rs.2500/- for each of the minor children. I will also provide for an additional sum of Rs.2500/- towards loss to estate and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the total amount that will become payable would be Rs.4,22,000/-. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. Since the accident has taken place in the year 1991, I would not make any direction for retention of any portion of the amount. The amount will be distributed equally between the widow and the FAO No.2244 of 1995 -3- children. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 09, 2010 Pankaj*