IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.498 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.02.2011 Sushsma Rani and others ....Appellants versus Gobind Ram and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Gurjeet Singh Bawa, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, and Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.5. None for respondents 1 to 3 and 6 to 10. ---- 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. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of a lawyer, who was 44 years of age. Through his first wife, he had 3 children and through the second wife, after the death of first wife, he had two children. A child was born posthumously subsequent to the death of the father after 8 months and the mother has also joined as a claimant. FAO No.498 of 1992 (O&M) - 2 - He was said to have 5 acres of land and the revenue entries for 3 to 4 years prior to his death had been filed to establish this fact. A clerk working under the lawyer was examined as PW3, who gave evidence to the effect that he had about 20 years of practice and he had 200 files with him. The evidence of the wife was that the deceased used to give about Rs.10,000/- every month for her expenses. The evidence relating to income is woefully inadequate. The Tribunal had taken the income to be Rs.2,000/-, provided for a 1/3rd deduction and adopted a multiplier of 16. The learned counsel states that an advocate with 20 years standing must have earned sufficiently in the manner spoken to by his widow. As far as the possession of 5 aces of land, the estate still remains but I would take the value of loss of service for a person to look after the agriculture land to be Rs.1,500/- per month and take the income of the deceased through his profession at another Rs.2,500/- per month and take the total income at Rs.4,000/- per month. This would still fall short of the taxable income at that time for that would explain why he had not paid tax. I will make a deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses and take the contribution to the family at Rs.36,000/- per year. I will adopt the multiplier of 14 and take the loss of dependency at Rs.5,04,000/-. I will provide for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and provide for love and affection for each children @ Rs.2,500/-. I will provide for another Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation would come to Rs.5,24,000/- and the amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal already, shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability shall be in the same manner as FAO No.498 of 1992 (O&M) - 3 - determined by the Tribunal already. 2. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 08.02.2011 sanjeev