FAO NO.5790 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO.5790 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:18.10.2011 Kamla Devi and others ...Appellants Versus Joga Singh & others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.K.S.Dhanora, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Mr.R.S.Dhull, Advocate, for respondent No.3. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. CM No.25537-CII of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 33 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main case Heard. The sole argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. From the perusal of the case file, it emerges that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 56 years, which is not disputed. He was serving as a government servant in the Haryana Roadways and earning a sum of `12,068/- per month, which is evident from the last pay certificate, Exhibit P1. The learned Tribunal observed that the retirement age of the FAO NO.5790 of 2010 (O&M) 2 deceased was 58 years and thus, he would have served for less than two years. The carry home salary of the deceased was `7,600/-per month. The learned Tribunal made deduction of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 5 keeping in view the remaining period in service as well as age of the deceased. Thus, the compensation arrived at was `3,04,000/- (`7,600/- x 1/3 x 12 x 5). Besides, this `20,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses etc. In the fact situation, it is apparent that the learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation did not assess future income of the deceased. Besides this, the learned Tribunal, while granting compensation considered the carry home salary of the deceased. However, the basis of determining the compensation should have been the gross salary, which was `12,068/-. Moreover, the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is also not appropriate. At the time of death of the deceased, he was 56 years of age. The retirement age of the deceased was 58 years. Had he not died, he would have carried gross salary of `12,068/- per month (Say `12,000/-) for the remaining two years. Thus, after applying the multiplier of 2 and deducting 1/3 from his income on account of personal expenses, the compensation from the date of accident till retirement, comes to `1,92,000/- (`12,000/- x 12 x 2 x 2/3). As regards the future income, this Court is of the view that he must have got at least 50% of his gross salary as pension which was not considered by the learned Tribunal. According to the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, multiplier FAO NO.5790 of 2010 (O&M) 3 of 9 would be applicable, as per the age of the deceased. Accordingly, by applying the enhanced multiplier of 9 and after making deductions of 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the compensation amount works out to `4,32,000/- (`6,000/- x 2/3 x 12 x 9). Thus, total compensation comes to `6,24,000/-. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal was `3,04,000/-. Thus, the enhanced compensation comes to `3,20,000/-, which shall be paid, in the manner as prescribed in the impugned award, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which, the same shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing the present appeal till its realization. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. 18.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Mks/atulsethi JUDGE