FAO No. 1648 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1648 of 2011 Date of decision June 1, 2011 Raja Ram and others ....... Appellants Versus Siya Ram and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Satbir Gill, Advocate for the appellant. **** 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 claim for compensation for death of a bachelor aged 18 years. The claimants are parents. With no income earned the Tribunal still took the average notional income at `3,000/- per month, made a deduction of 50% and adopted a multiplier of 14 suitable to the age of the parents. The compensation awarded was directed to be paid only to the mother. 2. The argument of the learned counsel seeking for enhancement is that even a labourer gets `4,000/- per month and the assessment notionally made at `3,000/- is grossly low. Schedule II in the statute took fixes a notional income only at `15,000/- per year. The provision made for `3,000/- by the Tribunal was therefore under the FAO No. 1648 of 2011 2 circumstances not as low as urged by the counsel for the appellant. The deduction of 50% conforms to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121 and the choice of multiplier to be dependent on the age of the parents also conforms to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakti Devi Vs. New India Insurance Company JT (2010) 13 SC 103 cannot therefore be faulted. 3. Learned counsel states that the Tribunal awarded compensation only to the mother and not to the father. It is only a matter of apportionment and it will have no bearing to the over all consideration of the dependency. Counsel's arguments that if the claim was to be considered to be favourable only for the mother then the contribution must have been taken as 2/3rd. With prospect of marriage for a bachelor and the possible loss of reduction in contribution in future, the provision for 50% contribution is the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) for death of a bachelor, when the claimant is a parent. 4. I do not find any error in the award. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE June 1, 2011 archana