FAO No. 1270 of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1270 of 1997 Date of decision April 4, 2011 Smt. Sangeeta Gupta ....... Appellant Versus Sajjan Singh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Chetan Mittal, Advocate with Mr. Mohinder Nain, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. R. C. Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeal is for claim of compensation for death of a male aged 37 years. He was employed with Markfed and he was drawing annual salary of `72,809/- that included `3,840/- as bonus. The Tribunal took the monthly income at `5,400/-, made a deduction of 1/3rd adopted a multiplier of 16 and assessed a compensation of `6,91,200/-. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant reads through the evidence of the witness PW-2 who gave evidence to the effect that he had a long tenure of service of 20 years and he had chances of promotion where his income would have been doubled. The place of employment was a Corporation established by law and I would take the tenure of service to be fairly well established and make provision for future FAO No. 1270 of 1997 2 increase of scope for enhancement of income. Having regard to the fact that he was less than 40 years of age, I will further make small deduction of 10% on the future increase as going towards income tax and take the average income at 1,35,000/- and make a deduction of 1/3rd . I will adopt a multiplier of 15 instead of 16 as taken by the Tribunal. I will also make provision for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection for the children and the other conventional heads namely loss of estate and funeral expenses in the manner suggested by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company points out that after the death of the deceased his wife has also been given employment in Kaithal. A provision for employment that provides to her income as a benefit to the service offered by her can not diminish her entitlements. There is no other special benefit which have been proved on record that has come to her by virtue of employment in the place of her husband to make any deduction as regards the same. I would therefore tabulate the compensation as below:- Age Occupation 44 Claimants Widow, 2 daughters, parents S.No. Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court 1 Income `5400/- `72,809/- 2 % of increase `1,00,500/- 3 Deduction 1/3rd 1/3rd 4 Multiplicand `3600 x 12 `69,000/- 5 Multiplier 16 15 6 Loss of dependency `10,35,000/- 7 Loss of consortium `7,000/- 8 Loss to estate `5,000/- 9 Funeral expenses `5,000/- Total `6,91,200/- `,10,52,000/- The amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall FAO No. 1270 of 1997 3 carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The amount shall be distributed in the manner as provided by the Tribunal and the liability among the respondents shall be as provided by the Tribunal. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 4, 2011 archana