FAO No.889 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No.889 of 2011 Date of decision May 4, 2011 Smt. Rajpati ....... Appellant Versus Surender Singh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. P.N. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a Pujari who was aged 55 years. The Tribunal took the income to be `120/- per day and assessed the compensation. Counsel states that he must be treated as an skilled worker and the income must have been taken as `200/- per day. Learned counsel refers to a judgment of Delhi High Court in Santosha Devi Vs. Abdul Kareem and others 2010 (1) ACJ 167 that held a person who was aged 35 years and who was a skilled labourer must have earned at least `3,312/- which was the minimum wage. I cannot draw any parity between the young man of 35 years whose income was taken `3,312/- as in any way affording a parallel situation to a person who was a Pujari in a temple. The Tribunal FAO No.889 of 2011 2 has taken the income at `3,600/- per year. It was much more than what was provided by the decision cited by the petitioner. The choice of multiplier was with reference to the age of a person which was perfectly justified. I do not find any reason to interfere. 2. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 4, 2011 archana