IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5205 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:31.01.2011 New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Rajender Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. None for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate, for respondents 3 & 4. ---- 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 ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is by the insurer, who had the benefit of defence on all grounds under Section 170 including the ground of quantum. The boy was aged 19 years and the claimants were the parents, aged 43 and 38. Even in the absence of any evidence relating to his income, earning status, the Tribunal took the income to be Rs.3,500/-, provided for a 1/3rd deduction and adopted a multiplier of 15. This judgment has come about subsequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another- 2009 ACJ 1298 that suggested a uniform formula applicable in all cases FAO No.5205 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - relating to death and the mode of arriving at the compensation. The learned counsel would contend that the deduction of 50% must have been taken having regard to the prospect of marriage and the resultant contribution to the family, I would take, therefore, at Rs.1,750/- per month and would retain the multiplier as taken by the Tribunal i.e. 15 to hold that the total loss of dependency will be Rs.3,15,000/-. The Tribunal had provided for Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses which I will retain. I will add another Rs.5,000/- towards loss to estate and hold the total compensation payable at Rs.3,25,000/-. The same shall be paid with interest as determined by the Tribunal and apportioned equally between the claimants. The compensation awarded already by the Tribunal shall stand scaled down to the amount as referred to above. 2. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 31.01.2011 sanjeev