IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No.429 of 2004 Date of Decision:30.3.2011. Smt.Kharo and others …Appellants. Versus. Sh.Lalit Kumar and another ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Appellant(s): Mr.Anand Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.G.D. Sharma, counsel for R-2. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). 1. This appeal by the claimants has been filed for enhancement of compensation. Since the only question is with regard to the quantum of compensation, it is not necessary to give other facts. 2. The deceased was allegedly working as a Mason and according to the claimants was earning about Rs.4000/- per month. He was aged 62 years at the time of the accident. The claimants are his widow, two sons and four daughters. The only minor son was 17 years of age at the time when the petition was filed. 2 3. The evidence led by the claimants is that the deceased was earning Rs.3500/- per month. Even if it is assumed that the deceased was a Mason at the relevant time, in the year 2003 a Mason was getting about Rs.150/- per day but a Mason does not earn every day of a month and he cannot work throughout the year. 4. Therefore, keeping in view the minimum wages of the year 2003, it would not be unjust to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.2500/- per month or Rs.30,000/- per year. Out of this, 1/3rd i.e. Rs.10,000/- per year has to be deducted to the personal expenses of the deceased and Rs.20,000/- per year would be the amount payable to his legal representatives. Since the age of the deceased was 62 years, the multiplier of 5 would be reasonable and the compensation worked out to be Rs.1,00,000/-. In addition thereto, the widow is also entitled to Rs.10,000/- as loss of consortium and the claimants are also entitled to Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses and another sum of Rs.5000/- on account of conventional damages. The total compensation payable works out to Rs.1,20,000/-. 5. Admittedly, the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance 3 Company is not liable. It is made clear that it is only respondent No.1 who shall be liable to pay the amount. 6. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed, the award of the learned Tribunal is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,20,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 16.4.2003 till its deposit. No costs. March 30, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. PV