FAO No.645 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.645 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: January 24, 2011 KARAMJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS SURINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes ---- PRESENT: NONE FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR. S.S. SALLAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 4. MR. TEJINDERPAL SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of a 30 years old person who was a cyclist and run over by the truck before hitting against the tree. It appears that three other passengers in the truck had also died in the same accident. As far as the cyclist was concerned, the accident answers the res ipsa loquitur situation. The only issue would be whether the compensation awarded was adequate or not. 2. The deceased was working in the Punjab Marketing Board, securing employment that provided an income of `1114/-. Having regard to the nature of employment in a statutorily constituted Board with a prospect of increase in income I would provide for a 50% increase in the salary and FAO No.645 of 1992 -2- take the average income to be `1671/-. I would provide for a deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses and take the monthly dependency at `1114/- and adopt a multiplier of 17 to find the loss of dependency at `2,27,256/-. I would add further sums towards the conventional heads of claim for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection for the children and loss to estate and funeral expenses to round the figure at `2,50,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded `1,53,600/- and the amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall draw interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The amount of increase shall be distributed equally between the wife and the daughter. The liability shall be on the insurance company as found by the Tribunal. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. January 24, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE