FAO No.125 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.125 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION: January 6, 2011 SMT. DALJIT KAUR & OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS RAVI DUTT & OTHERS ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. RAJNISH NARULA, ADVOCATE FOR MR. PRITAM SAINI, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2. MR.INDERJIT SHARMA, ADVOCATE AND MR. PARDEEP BEDI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for the death of a person who was working as Electrician in Haryana Roadways, aged 47 years and was said to be earning `1750/-. The claimants were widow and three minor children and the Tribunal assessed the extent of dependency at 800/- and adopted a multiplier of 15 to provide for compensation of `1,44,000/- 2. Counsel pleads for assessment of compensation as suggested by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121, making due provision for prospect of increase in salary FAO No.125 of 1989 -2- for a person who was employed in a quasi Government service. I would provide for 30% increase and take the average salary at `2275/-. I would provide for deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses and take the expenditure on monthly dependency at `1706.25 and adopt a multiplier of 13 and find the loss of dependency at `2,66,175/-. I would make addition of `5000/- towards loss of consortium and `2500/- towards love and affection for each of the minor children. I would also provide for `2500/- towards loss of estate and `2000/- towards funeral expenses and find the total amount payable as `2,85,175/-. The amount in excess over what has been already granted by the Tribunal will attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The amount shall be divided equally amongst the widow and children. 3. The accident had taken place during the operation of Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 and the insurance company pleads for restriction of liability to `1,50,000/-. As per the terms of the policy, the liability of the insurance company shall, therefore, stand restricted to `1,50,000/- with interest as awarded and the excess amount shall be borne by the owner- insured. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. January 6, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE