CM No.21429-CII of 2010 & CM No.21430-CII of 2010 in FAO No.4981 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CM No.21429-CII of 2010 & CM No.21430-CII of 2010 in FAO No.4981 of 2010 Date of decision : 12.5.2011 Union of India and others .........Appellants Vs. Yashwant Singh .......Respondentss CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present:- Mr.S.K.Sharma, Advocate, for UOI None for the respondents --- K.KANNAN, J (ORAL) :- CM No.21429-CII to 21430-CII of 2010 In the facts & circumstances, application for delay of 754 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing with the consent of both the parties. FAO No.4981 of 2010 1. The appeal is against the award of compensation of death of a lady, aged 28 years. The claimants were the husband and two minor children, aged 6 and 4 years. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation, took the income of the deceased at ` 3,000/-per CM No.21429-CII of 2010 & CM No.21430-CII of 2010 in FAO No.4981 of 2010 -2- month, provided for 1/3rd deduction and adopted a multiplier of 18. The learned counsel states that there was no proof of income and the provision for ` 3,000/-per month was grossly high. The learned counsel also contends that the choice of multiplier of 18 was erroneous. I do not want to reappraise the issue of compensation where the intervention sought for could not be but for a marginal alteration. The counsel says that the appropriate multiplier must have been 17. His contention that the lady could not be said to have had earning of ` 3,000/-per month cannot also have any meaning, in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Arun Kumar Aggarwal and another v. National Insurance Company and others, 2010 RAJ 262'. Even without reference to actual income earned by a woman, contribution as a house holder of her family of husband and children could be assessed at not less than ` 3,000/- per month. I will find no reason to make any modification with regard to the compensation assessed by the Tribunal. 2. Accordingly, I confirm the award and dismiss the appeal. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 12.5.2011 akm