IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.7040 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:25.03.2011 Mam Raj and another ....Appellants versus Anil Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a male, aged 19 years, who was said to be a barber and running a shop in the mandir premises. The pujari of the mandir also had given evidence about the fact that he was having a shop and he was earning about Rs.12,000/- per month. The Tribunal rejected this evidence as not worthy of acceptance by the fact that if he had a shop, he must have paid tax for the shop in question or he must have been able to examine the owner to state that the property had been given to him for running this business. FAO No.7040 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - 2. In the absence of any documentary evidence or appropriate evidence to prove his income earning capacity, the Tribunal took the income at Rs.3,000/-, made a deduction of 50% and adopted a multiplier of 16. The learned counsel states that the appropriate multiplier must have been 18 having regard to the fact that he was 19 years of age. There have been different approaches by various Courts and even in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in Shakti Devi Versus New India Insurance Company Limited and another-JT 2010 (12) SC 106, held that the choice of multiplier will depend on the age of the parents and not merely the age of the deceased where the claimants are parents. The multiplier adopted as 16 cannot be, therefore, said to be wrong. 3. The learned counsel also states that no transportation charges had been provided for. The Tribunal added Rs.7,000/- for medical expenses, which I would understand as going towards transportation also. Even otherwise pecuniary heads of claim must established through specific evidence and if they are not so done, the claimant cannot take that to be a ground in appeal for the first time before this Court. The award of compensation at Rs.2,95,000/-, I would take that to be as just and find no reason to interfere in an appeal for enhancement. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.03.2011 sanjeev