FAO No.6685 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6685 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 15.03.2011 Mofeez aged 65 years son of Mohd. Kaleemu Deen and others ......Appellants Versus Gurdeep Singh son of late Shri Arjan Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. Delay in refiling and filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for death of a male aged 18, who was said to be a Mason. The claimants were parents aged 65 and 55 years and the brother and sister had also been made as parties aged 14 and 16 as dependents. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation, took the overall income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- provided for 1/3rd deduction and took the contribution to the family at Rs.2000/-, adopted a multiplier of 9 to determine a compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- that included Rs.4,000/- as funeral expenses. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) SCC 121, the choice of multiplier was wrongly done. It should have been 18. This decision has been a subject of subsequent decision of the FAO No.6685 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakti Devi Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited JT 2010(13) SC 103 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that appropriate multiplier that has to be adopted will depend on the age of the parents and not on the age of the deceased where the claimants are parents. If the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra) were to be applied in full, it should also be seen that the appropriate deduction would have been 50% and not 1/3rd as the Tribunal has done. If a 50% deduction were to be made and a multiplier is even raised to about 11 that may have a bearing to the younger of the parents for determination of multiplier, even then the amount awarded will be less than what has been determined by the Tribunal. 4. The claim for compensation for siblings may not arise in cases where the parents are still alive and the dependency could be attributed only to the parents and not to the elder brother. The compensation awarded is just and appropriate and I find no reason to interfere with the same. 5. The appeal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 15, 2011 Pankaj*