FAO No.6252 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6252 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: April 5, 2011 SMT. MANISHA AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS PAWAN AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. RAMENDER CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation of `7,62,800/- determined for the death of a male aged 36 years. The contention of the claimant was that her husband was earning `16,400/- per month. This was sought to be proved through an Accountant of Alpha Constructions who was examined as PW2. He had not, however, produced any record for the same and therefore, he had taken time to produce the relevant record at the next hearing. At the next hearing also the documents could not be produced and the Tribunal reasoned that if a salary had been paid of `16,400/-, TDS would have been deducted and there must be proof of such fact. When the evidence of PW2 was not found reliable, the Tribunal believed that as a skilled worker he would have earned `5000/- per month and after making a deduction of `1600/- for personal expenses and adopting a multiplier of 16, determined the compensation at `7,62,800/-. It FAO No.6252 of 2010 -2- also added conventional heads of claim over this and distributed the amount amongst the claimants in the manner mentioned in paragraph 17 of the award. 2. If there was no convincing evidence about the income of the deceased as `16,400/-, the assessment of compensation made by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. Even the choice of multiplier has been on a value which is relatively higher, but this would off-set for the higher deduction made for personal expenses in a case where the deceased was supporting a family of his wife, three children and aged parents. The over- all compensation in my view seems to be just and I would not find any reason to interfere in the same. 3. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. April 5, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE