FAO No. 5557 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5557 of 2010 Date of decision February 24 , 2011 Smt. Raj Bala and others ....... Appellants Versus Manjeet Singh and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. R. A. Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for the respondents. **** 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 claim for compensation for death of a male aged 43 years. He was said to be a Munshi with a lawyer and it is stated that he was earning `4,000/- as a Clerk of the lawyer and `3,000/- as a driver. The claimants were widow, two sons aged 22 and 18 and parents. The Tribunal took, in the absence of any documentary proof relating to income that he would have earned al least `4,000/- and took dependency at `2600/- and awarded a compensation of `4,41,800/-. 2. I will not make any modification with reference to the income but however, I will provide for a deduction of 1/4th having regard to the fact that he had a large family to support. Counsel for the Insurance FAO No. 5557 of 2010 2 Company states that the evidence of the Advocate had not been produced before the Court that he was a Munshi. It is also argued on behalf of the insurer that father cannot be treated to be a dependent and even amongst the sons one of them was a major. As regards the sons who have just crossed the age of 18 the issue of dependence ought to have been taken as an issue of fact. There cannot be a rule of thumb that a boy who has crossed the age of 18 could not have been dependent. Under Indian social conditions, the family live together and children stay put with parents till at least they get married. This aspect ought to be taken as a relevant circumstance, unless the son is shown to have any independent earning and therefore he could not have been treated as a dependent, I will not suspect the issue of dependence pleaded on behalf of the sons in the petition. I will rework the compensation and tabulate it as below. S.No. Head of claim Amount 1 Income `4,000/- 2 Multiplicand `3,000/- 3 Multiplier 14 4 Loss of dependency 5,04,000/- 5 Loss of consortium `5,000/- 6 Loss to estate `2,500/- 7 Funeral expenses `2,500/- Total `5,14,000/- The amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. The enhanced portion of compensation shall be paid to the wife and children only. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the Tribunal had awarded interest only from the date of the award and not from the date of petition. There is no particular reason given by the Tribunal for denying to the claimant the entitlement to the interest from the FAO No. 5557 of 2010 3 date of petition. When particularly there is no reason such as deliberate delay as having been caused by the claimants, I shall accord interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment on the original award amended as well as to the enhanced portion. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 24, 2011 archana