FAO No. 507 of 2010 1 FAO No. 508 of 2010 FAO No. 509 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 507 of 2010 Date of decision February 21 , 2011 Sunder Lal and another ....... Appellants Versus Ved Pal and another ........Respondents FAO No. 508 of 2010 Kashimiri Devi and others ....... Appellants Versus Ved Pal and another ........Respondents FAO No. 509 of 2010 Sunder Lal and another ....... Appellants Versus Ved Pal and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. J. S. Saneta , Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 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. All the appeals are connected and they address FAO No. 507 of 2010 2 FAO No. 508 of 2010 FAO No. 509 of 2010 the issue of enhancement of compensation for death of three persons, two of whom were children and one was a person aged 54 years. 2. FAO No.507 of 2010 relates to a claim for compensation for enhancement for death of a child aged 5 years and the claimants were parents in FAO No. 509 of 2010 relates to death of a child aged 8 years and the claimants are again the parents. The Tribunal had awarded 1,35,000/- and 1,60,000/- respectively. The counsel states that the Tribunal must have determined the compensation on the basis of notional income of the deceased at 15,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 15 in the manner referred to in Schedule II and also provide for a special damage for an additional amount of 50,000/- as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Coourt in Priya Vs. Kalgutakar 2009 15 SCC 54 and R.K. Malik Vs. Kiran Pal 2009 3 RCR (Civil) 403. In my view, the fair compensation in both the cases would be to enhance them to 2,25,000/- from the respective awards. The amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 3. As regards the claim for enhancement of compensation in FAO No.508 of 2010, the deceased was 54 years and said to be an agricultural labourer. With no definite evidence relating to his income, the Tribunal took the average income at 3,000/-, provided for 1/3rd deduction and awarded a compensation of 2,12,000/-. The claimants were widow and three sons. Learned counsel states that even an unskilled labourer draws a minimum wage of 3,500/- per month and the assessment at 3,000/- is grossly low. Learned counsel also states that there were four claimants and the deduction could not have been 1/3rd but it should have been taken as 1/4th in terms of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 FAO No. 507 of 2010 3 FAO No. 508 of 2010 FAO No. 509 of 2010 SC 121. 4. The deduction of 1/4th would be appropriate in cases where all the claimants are shown to be dependents. Still the wife's dependence cannot be denied at all. As regards the claim on behalf of the sons, all of them were majors and they could not be taken to be dependents. While they may be entitled to compensation as legal representatives of the deceased and would have suffered loss on account of the loss to estate, providing for a lower deduction will arise only in cases where actual dependence of the claimants are clearly established by evidence. I will see no reason to alter a deduction for personal expenses from 1/3rd to 1/4th as convassed by the counsel. Even the plea for a higher income at 3,500/- to be taken cannot be a matter-of-fact approach. If a person must be provided with the minimum wage at 3500/-, it cannot be assumed that an unskilled labourer in an unorganized sector will have employment right through the year to take the minimum wages as an average wage per month for all the 12 months. The assessment at 3,000/- on an average for all the years cannot be taken to be off the mark. I find no reason to increase the average income of the deceased any more than what the Tribunal had already provided for. The award is confirmed and FAO No.508 of 2010 is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 21, 2011 archana