In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... CM No.12829-CII of 2010 and F.A.O. No.2639 of 2010 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:8.8.2011 Bala Devi and others .....Appellants v. Narendra Singh and others .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 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 ? ...... Present: Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. Civil Misc. No. 12829 -CII of 2010: For the reasons stated in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.12829-CII of 2010, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 20 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned. F.A.O. No.2639 of 2010: F.A.O. No.2639 of 2010 (O&M) [2] Appellants-claimants Bala Devi, Sachin, Sangita, Sarvogya and Gian Devi in this appeal have prayed for increase of compensation of `2,51,963/- along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum awarded vide order/award dated 30.9.2009 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Circle Hisar (hereinafter referred to as `the Commissioner’). Appellant Bala Devi is the widow of Vinod Kumar (deceased), appellants Sachin, Sangita and Sarvogya are son and daughters respectively of Vinod Kumar and appellant Gian Devi is mother of Vinod Kumar. Vinod Kumar was employed as a Conductor/Helper of Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No.HR-39A-2497 with Narendra Singh-owner (respondent No.1). Randhir Singh (respondent No.2) was driver of the above vehicle. Narendra Singh-owner appeared before the Commissioner and admitted Vinod Kumar as his employee and `3,000/- per month as salary and `50/- as daily expenses for diet i.e. `4,500/- p.m. The Tata 407 vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited (respondent No.3). On the direction of Narendra Singh-owner, Vinod Kumar while on duty as Conductor/helper on Tata 407 vehicle on 15.7.2005, met with an accident and sustained serious and grievous injuries which proved fatal and while being taken to the hospital, he succumbed to his injuries. F.I.R. No.80 dated 15.7.2005 was registered in this regard at Police Station Ismailabad. At the time of death, Vinod Kumar was aged 27 years and was getting `3,000/- per month as salary and `50/- as daily allowance for diet i.e. `4,500/- per month from respondent No.1. On the claim petition filed by the appellants, the Commissioner F.A.O. No.2639 of 2010 (O&M) [3] awarded the compensation as mentioned above. I have heard Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and have perused the records of this case. There is no straitjacket formula by which the amount of compensation can be estimated. However, the same can be gauged keeping in view the status of the parties especially the claimants, the manner in which the accident had taken place, life span of the deceased, expenses incurred on the last rites, agony of the claimants etc. The Commissioner, after appreciating the entire evidence and the fact that the claimants and respondent No.1 could not produce any written evidence to prove that Vinod Kumar (deceased), who was aged about 27 years, was getting monthly salary of `4,500/- from respondent No.1, took into account minimum wages i.e. `2359.54 per month which were payable at that time for the category of helper and awarded compensation of `2,51,963/- within 30 days failing which the Insurance Company-respondent No.3 would also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of award till the date of payment to the appellants-claimants. The amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, appears to be quite reasonable. However, the appellants-claimants will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and not 12 per cent per annum as awarded by the Commissioner if the payment is not made by respondent No.3 within 30 days of passing the award. The impugned award is, accordingly, modified so far as award of interest is concerned. F.A.O. No.2639 of 2010 (O&M) [4] With the above modification in the impugned award, this appeal is hereby dismissed. August 8, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*