FAO No.6275 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6275 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 03.03.2011 Smt. Maya Devi wife of Rattan Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Satya Parkash son of Prabhu Dayal and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Yash Dev Kaushik, Advocate for the appellants. 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 claim for compensation for death of a bachelor aged 20 years, who was said to be running a laundry shop. The Tribunal took the income at Rs.2500/- and adopted a multiplier of 15 for a claim made by the mother and sister. The argument by the counsel is that the Tribunal has not provided for any provision for transportation. The Tribunal has provided for Rs.10,000/- for loss to estate and Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses. The Tribunal has provided for two different sets of calculation, first for a period of five years by making a deduction of 1/3rd and for the remaining 15 years for making a deduction of 2/3rd. These formulations are needless and a uniformity in approach comes through decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121, which has suggested that there shall be a 50% deduction and multiplier that will be suitable FAO No.6275 of 2010 (O&M) -2- to the age of younger of the parents-claimants shall be taken. I would assess the justness of claim for compensation by applying the uniform formula by making 50% deduction and adopting a multiplier suitable to the age of the parents. The deceased was aged 20 years and I will, therefore, assume the age of the parents at least above 40. Even if a multiplier of 14 were to be taken, the loss of dependence would be Rs.2,10,000/- and if the notional heads of claim are also added, it cannot be more than Rs.2,49,968/-, which has been awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The overall compensation of Rs.2,49,968/- seem just and I see no scope for interference. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 03, 2011 Pankaj*