FAO No.879 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No.879 of 2011 Date of decision May 4, 2011 Bhupender Singh and another ....... Appellants Versus Parteek Saini and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 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 which was assessed at `4,60,000/- for death of a pensioner which was a retired teacher aged 62 years. The wife had already expired and the claimants were the son and daughter. Both of whom were major but the daughter was unmarried and to that extent dependent on the deceased. While assessing the compensation the Tribunal took the entire pension which was drawn as the resultant loss to the family and adopted a multiplier of 7 on the scale suggested by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121. Learned counsel states that he also owned agricultural lands and loss of managerial skills of the land had not been taken into account. The Tribunal has taken the entire amount of pension as the loss and provided FAO No.879 of 2011 2 for a contribution after deducting a portion towards personal expenses. It was actually taking a multiplicand larger than what the case would merit. The agricultural land is still available and the loss from the agricultural income must be taken as duly factored when the Tribunal was adopting a multiplicand that took the entire pension as the amount of income which he was earning and it was providing for contribution to the family at `5,400/- per month. What was not provided in the managerial skills had been made up relatively on higher value of contribution taken only through pension as a source of income. The over all compensation of `4,60,000/- assessed for the claimants under the circumstances is justified and I find no reason to interfere. 2. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 4, 2011 archana