IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2607 of 2004 Date of decision:09.08.2010 New India Assurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Surinder Singh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Amit Shivrain, Advocate, for Mr.Kulvir Narwal, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ----- 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 Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the quantum on a basis that it had the benefit of defending the case on all grounds under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The deceased was 63 years of age and he was said to be an an agricultural labourer, earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal allowed for 1/3rd deduction for his personal expenses and adopted a multiplier of 13. 3. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company states that the choice of multiplier was clearly wrong. In my view, it does not FAO No.2607 of 2004 - 2 - accord either with the scale of compensation provided under Schedule-II or the scale suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case. The appropriate multiplier should have been only 5. So reckoned, the total amount payable under the said head of loss of dependence ought to have been Rs.1,20,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.5,000/- on account of loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- for transportation and funeral expenses and added Rs.10,000/-. I retain the same which would mean that the claimants would be entitled to Rs.1,30,000/-. The amount awarded in excess of the same shall stand set aside. The appeal is therefore allowed partially to admit the claim of the claimants to the tune of Rs.1,30,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.08.2010 sanjeev