IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.898 of 1992 Date of decision:30.06.2010 M/s Him Ispat Limited Kangorie (Damtal), District Kangra, through its Managing Director/General Manager/etc. ....Appellant versus Baljeet Kaur and others ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. M.L.Saini, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 4.. ---- 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. This is a joint appeal filed by the owner and the Insurance Company questioning the quantum while determining the compensation for death of a person who was aged 32 years assessed the income to be Rs.2,000/-. The Court below has provided for personal expenses and assessed the annual contribution to the family as Rs.1,600/-. It has adopted the multiplier of 20 and has granted a compensation of Rs.3,20,000/-. 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the owner pleads for transposition of the Insurance Company as respondent in the manner provided in Chinnama George and others Versus N.K.Raju and another-2000(4) SCC 130, and would press for consideration of the case on merits relating to quantum. The Registry is directed to transpose the FAO No.898 of 1992 - 2 - 1st appellant as the 6th respondent. 3. According to the counsel, on the issue of quantum for a person, who was 32 years, multiplier could not have been 20 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another- 2009 ACJ 1298, that the appropriate multiplier for a person aged between 31 to 35 would be 17. Therefore, the counsel pleads that the compensation that could have been awarded was only Rs.2,75,000/- but I notice from the award that the Tribunal has not provided for other heads of claim permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act. I allow for Rs.5,000/- for loss to an estate and Rs.10,000/- as loss of consortium for the wife. There was a child aged 7 years and the loss due to love and affection, shall be estimated to Rs.5,000/-. The funeral expenses will have also to be provided for and that will be another 5,000 rupees. That award has to be considered for additional amount of Rs.25,000/- under the various heads referred to above. If he added Rs.25,000/- to Rs.2,75,000/-, it will be Rs.3,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,20,000/- and rest was stayed. Consequently, there shall be a reduction on the amount of Rs.3,20,000/-. Subject to these modifications, the liability of the Insurance Company shall stand restricted to Rs.3 lakhs instead of Rs.3,20,000/- as awarded by the Court. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. 4. The appeal is allowed in part in the manner indicated above (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.06.2010 sanjeev