FAO No.895 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.895 of 1988 Date of Decision. 07.01.2011 Mrs. Neelam Nagpal alias Anil Kumari widow of late Dr. Nand Kishore Nagpal and others ......Appellants Versus Shri Gurnam Singh driver of truck No.HYX-3595 c/o Sh. Hardev Singh son of Shri Atma Singh, Sabzi Mandi, Ambala City and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. M.B. Singh, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent Nos.1. Mr. J.C. Batra, Advocate for respondnet No.2. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr Pradeep Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.3. 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. The appeal is for enhancement of a claim for death of a Veterinary Surgeon, who was 39 years of age and was in Government service. The salary proved was Rs.2491/-. The claimants were widow and children and the Tribunal while assessing the dependency at Rs.1500/-, adopted a multiplier of 16 to hold that the claimants were entitled to Rs.2,88,000/- . I will assess the compensation in the manner suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) SCC 121 to hold that in a regular Government service with a sure FAO No.895 of 1988 -2- prospect of increase in income, the deceased would have obtained 50% increase at least and I would take the average income to be Rs.3737/-. I would make a deduction of 1/4th since the deceased was supporting a family of 4 dependents and take the contribution at Rs.2803/-. He was 39 years of age and therefore, I will adopt a multiplier of 15 instead of 16 as taken by the Tribunal. The loss of dependence would be Rs.5,04,540/-. I will add Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife and Rs.2500/- to each one of the minor children. I will make a further addition of Rs.5,000/- as loss to estate and Rs.2500/- for funeral expenses and find the total amount of compensation payable at Rs.5,24,540/-. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 2. Learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the accident took place when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was in operation and the liability of the insurance company is restricted to Rs.1,50,000/-. The insurance company will, therefore, be liable only to Rs.1,50,000/- with interest and the balance of amount shall be recovered from respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. owner and driver respectively. The amount of compensation shall be distributed equally amongst all the claimants namely widow and children. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 07, 2011 Pankaj*