FAO No.696 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.696 of 2011 Date of Decision. 27.04.2011 Raj Rani wife of Diwan Chand @ Diwan Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Ram Phool Singh son of Sh. Daya Sukh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. Delay is condoned. 2. The appeal is for enhancement of claim of compensation awarded to the parents of deceased. The deceased was said to be running a business in grocery shop and said to be earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The deceased was aged 22 years. The claimants did not give any proof regarding their age. Again there was also no proof regarding the income of the deceased when admittedly he was not an income tax assessee. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-, made a deduction of 50% for personal expenses and adopted a multiplier of 13 and provided a compensation of Rs.3,22,000/-. 3. The learned counsel states that 50% deduction should not have been made and 1/3rd deduction must have been given. It is also FAO No.696 of 2011 -2- contended that choice of multiplier was erroneous, for the mother was aged less than 45 years of age. The Tribunal in the absence of any proof relating to the age of the parents has taken that the parents must have been in the age group of 45-50 years and took the multiplier suitable to the age of the parents. Deduction taken of one half for a person and application of multiplier suitable to the age of the parents conforms to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 and Shakti Devi Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. JT 2010(13) SC 103 respectively. 4. The overall compensation determined at Rs.3,22,000/-, in my view, under such circumstances is appropriate and just and there is no scope for interference. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 27, 2011 Pankaj*