IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1191 of 1998 Decided on : 15.10.2010 Mrs. Mamo Devi & others ... Appellants versus Kulwant Singh & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.K.Bishamboo, Advocate for Oriental Insurance Co. **** 1.To be referred to the reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** K. Kannan, J. 1) The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation of death of police Head Constable aged about 41 years. The claimants are widow and three minor children. At the trial, evidence were produced to the effect that the deceased was earning ` 5,269/-. The Tribunal took the average monthly income to be ` 4834/- after deduction of some allowances, applied a deduction of 2/3rd, took the extent of dependency at ` 3223/-, adopted a multiplier of 16 and award of compensation of ` 6,18,816/-. (2) The contention in the appeal is that the Tribunal had not properly provided for an increase in average pay for a person who had regular tenure of service with prospects of increase in salary. He would also state that the deduction ought not to have been 2/3rd having regard to the large size of family and it should be only ¼th. He would seek for the application of the formula profounded by the FAO No.1191 of 1998 -2- Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121. While accepting the same and by providing increase of 30% in salary, I would take average income at ` 6,850/- and applying a deduction of ¼th dependency is taken as ` 5,140/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium for which I will provide ` 5,000/- and I also provide ` 2,500/- for loss of love and affection to each of the minor children. The total amount that would become payable to claimants is ` 8,63,520/-. The amount held in excess over what was already awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. (3) Since the accident took place in the year 1995 and I have taken multiplier of even less than 15, I will not make any direction for deposit of any portion of the amount. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The distribution of the amount shall be made in the same fashion as has been determined by the tribunal. October 15, 2010 (K. KANNAN) sonia JUDGE