FAO No.409 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.409 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:18.05.2011 Smt. Sheela Devi wd/o Maidhan son of Ram Sarup and others .......Appellants Versus Veer Singh son of Ram Kanwar and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Satish Garg, Advocate for Mr. Minderjeet Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a person, who was aged 45 years. The deceased was said to be a Mason. The Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3600/-, made a deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses and adopted a multiplier of 14. The scales of compensation are in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the Tribunal must have been taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3910/- being the minimum wages for an unskilled worker. Even if the same has to be taken as contended by the learned counsel, it cannot be assumed that a Mason would work on all the days and an average income at the same FAO No.409 of 2011(O&M) -2- rate argued by the counsel could still be not more than Rs.3600/-. Learned counsel further argues that the Tribunal has provided only Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses. I cannot take a reappraisal of compensation only on alleged insufficiency for the funeral expenses. The overall compensation determined at Rs.4,63,600/- is in accordance with evidence and is just and appropriate. 4. I do not find any scope for interference in appeal. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 18, 2011 Pankaj*