IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1119 of 1997 Date of decision:31.08.2010 M/s Banda Bahadur Bi Highways (Registered) Khanna District near Bus Stand Khanna District Ludhiana through Shri Malkiat Singh. ....Appellant versus Smt. Kulwant Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- 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 Insurance Company is in appeal on quantum along with the owner. A joint appeal cannot be maintained as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chinnama George and others Versus N.K.Raju and another-2000(4) SCC 130. The Insurance Company is, therefore, directed to be transposed as 4th respondent and the Registry is directed to carry out the amendment in the memo of parties. The appeal is being taken up for consideration only as regards the quantum. 2. The counsel for the respondent pleads that the Tribunal has breached the basic rules of applying the appropriate multiplier for FAO No.1119 of 1997 - 2 - deceased person, who was aged 50 years. According to him, the multiplier adopted was 10 when it ought have been 13 in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case and in other cases. He would also contend that an evidence was brought forth to the effect that a witness PW3 had claimed that he was actually working in a tailor shop owned by the deceased and he was being paid Rs.2,500/-. When the employee himself was getting Rs.2,500/-, the Tribunal had merely taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/-. The claimant would contend that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 3. The choice of multiplier was clearly low and the Tribunal had not even provided for conventional heads of claims. The claimants have not themselves filed cross appeal for enhancement but in a case where the quantum of compensation is only the issue, I shall not feel fettered for considering the issue on quantum, even if it mean the enhancement of the quantum for compensation for the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the assumption that the deceased was 50 years of age was not correct and the age was itself a point of contention before the Tribunal. He had secured the electoral roll through RW1 which found in an entry against the deceased name that he was aged 70 years and the claimant was shown to be 60 years of age. The claimant on her part had relied on ration card that contained reference to the deceased as aged 48 and the claimant as aged 45. The Tribunal however took the age of the deceased to be only 50 years. It was also in evidence that the child who had been shown as a co- petitioner was a minor. Though there cannot be a medical improbability FAO No.1119 of 1997 - 3 - for a person of 70 years to have a minor child, I would go by the normal situation that if he had been married at the appropriate time, if there was also a minor child, he ought to have been only 50 years or around. This is merely an expression of a probability while affirming the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was 50 years of age and by taking such a view, it has not grossly departed from the evidence. 4. As regards the actual income of the deceased, I cannot increase the multiplicand only by the fact that PW3 had given evidence that he was being paid Rs.2,500/- by the deceased. With no better evidence than mere oral assertions, the Tribunal was justified in taking the income to be Rs.3,000/- per month and if a deduction had been made for 1/3rd, the monthly contribution to the family would have been Rs.2,000/-. However, the Tribunal had taken the extent of dependence for the wife and the minor child to be Rs.2,300/-. I retain the same and would adopt a multiplier of 13. The Tribunal has also not provided for conventional heads of claim which I would provide for another Rs.15,000/- including Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium for the wife and Rs.5,000/- for love and affection for the child. In all, the amount that would become payable would be Rs.3,73,800. The amount that is determined in excess for the amount already awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 31.08.2010 sanjeev