FAO No.239 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.239 of 2005 Date of Decision. 24.08.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Assistant Manager ......Appellant Versus Smt. Kamla Rani wd/o Sh. Brij Kumar Suri and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondents No.4 and 5. 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. The insurance company is on appeal on the question of quantum, having had the benefit of defence under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The only objection which is taken by the claimant is that in the case of four dependents, the Tribunal must have taken the deduction to be only 1/4th and not 1/3rd in the manner done by the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the evidence was that the deceased was running a karyana shop. If the income of the deceased was to be taken as Rs.3500/- and a 1/4th deduction were to be applied, the amount of contribution to the family must have been taken as Rs.2625/-. The appropriate multiplier should have been 13, which was what was applied by the Tribunal. The compensation FAO No.239 of 2005 -2- payable would have been, therefore, Rs.4,09,500/-. For the conventional heads of claim for a person, I would provide for an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2500/- for loss to estate and another Rs.2500/- for funeral expenses. There are three minor children and I would provide for an additional Rs.5,000/- each for each of the minor children for loss of love and affection. The amount that would become payable would be Rs.4,34,500/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.4,42,800/- and I do not want to make any modification for such a small difference from how the Tribunal has arrived and how the amount is calculated now. 2. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 24, 2010 Pankaj*