FAO No. 396 of 2011 FAO No. 601 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 396 of 2011 Date of decision April 19, 2011 Smt. Santro and others ....... Appellants Versus Vinod and others ........Respondents FAO No.601 of 2011 Pirthi Singh @ Prithvi Singh and another ....... Appellants Versus Vinod and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for the appellants. **** 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. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident and address the plea for enhancement of compensation. 2. In FAO No.396 of 2011, the claimants were widow and children of a male aged 40 years. It was claimed that the deceased was earning 10,000/- per month as an agriculturist. With no details of holding of land, the Tribunal took the income to be 3500/- per month and worked out the compensation on the scales laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121. It added 10,000/- towards last rites and 5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife and awarded 4,87,500/- as FAO No. 396 of 2011 FAO No. 601 of 2011 compensation payable. 3. Learned counsel states that income must have been more than 3500/- and the Tribunal ought to have provided for transportation expenses. In the absence of specific evidence relating to his income status, the provision made by the Tribunal at 3500/-, in my view is appropriate. Transportation expenses is invariably a pecuniary head of claim that will have to be clearly established and if there was no definite evidence on the same, the fact that there was no provision made cannot be a ground for an appeal. Even otherwise while assessing the compensation 4,87,500/- any marginal provision for an increase towards transportation is not going to materially affect the award. I do not find any justification for interference in the appeal. 4. In FAO No.601 of 2011, the claim for compensation for death of a bachelor where the claimants were parents aged 72 and 68 years. The Tribunal again took income to be 3500/- and made a deduction of 50% for personal expenses and adopted a multiplier suitable to the age of the parents and determined a compensation of 2,70,000/-. Learned counsel states that the provision for 50% deduction is on the higher side. This contention is also not tenable for the formula adopted by the Tribunal conforms to the scale of compensation provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma's case (supra) 4. Both the awards are sustained and intervention through appeals are declined. The appeals are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 19 , 2011 archana FAO No. 396 of 2011 FAO No. 601 of 2011