FAO No.506 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.506 of 1995 Date of Decision.12.07.2010 Devinder Singh s/o Gurmej Singh (driver of tractor No.HR-08/7502), resident of Lander Keema) Tehsil and District Kaithal and another .........Appellants Versus Giani Ram son of Santu Ram Caste Brahman and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents. 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 filed jointly by the insurance company and the insured. Having regard to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chinnama George and others Vs. N.K. Raju and another 2000 (4) SCC 130, the insurance company is arrayed as a respondent and the appeal is taken as being prosecuted only by the owner. Accordingly, it is ordered that the insurance company is transposed as respondent No.5 and the registry shall carry out the amendment to the memo of parties after transposition in the manner referred to above. 2. The claim is at the instance of the husband and three children, who have been granted a compensation of Rs.1,15,200/- FAO No.506 of 1995 -2- for death of the house wife. The Tribunal has taken the dependence to the family as Rs.300/- and adopted a multiplier of 32. The counsel is correct in stating that the choice of multiplier was wrong. The contribution by house wife to building a family could hardly be under-estimated. More so, when there are three children to be tended. The issue of quantifying the householder's contribution to the family has ever daunted a consistent approach in all Courts but there has been never a doubt that householder plays a pivotal role in bringing up a family. A Rs.300/- approximation to her services is a gross under-estimation of the value of a householder. In my view, anything less than Rs.3000/- will be grossly low. Even providing for the amount, which has been granted will far be an under-estimation. Under the circumstances, the amount for compensation determined at Rs.1,15,200/- need not be disturbed. If at all, there was a scope for enhancement, which I have not chosen to do in the absence of the respondents. 3. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 12, 2010 Pankaj*