IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 1121 of 1987 Date of Decision: 25.11.2008 Santosh Kumar and another. ....... Appellants through Shri J.P.Sharma,Advocate. Versus State of Haryana and another. ....... Respondents through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. Feeling dis-satisfied with award dated 29.7.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No.28 of 1985, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Sanjay Kumar, the son of the appellants, who was a student of B.A. Part-I, lost his life in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 13.4.1985. His scooter was hit by the bus bearing registration No.HRX- 1611 owned by respondent no.1 and being driven by respondent no.2 at the relevant time. On a claim petition having been filed by the appellants, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation to them along F.A.O. No.1121 of 1987 -2- .... with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. The notional dependency of the appellants was assessed at Rs.6000/- per annum and a multiplier of `15' was adopted. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. The only question that is to be determined is as to what amount of compensation would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. In Manju Devi and another Versus Musafir Paswan and another,, 2005 A.C.J. 99, their Lordships of the Supreme Court took the notional income of a young boy of 13 years who lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, at Rs.15000/- per annum and applied a multiplier of `15' to allow compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- to his parents. In the instant case, the deceased was about 18 years old at the time of the accident. Therefore, while drawing support from the aforementioned judgment, his notional income is taken at Rs.18000/- per annum. The multiplier of `15', in my view, is just and appropriate. Thus, the compensation works out to Rs.2,70,000/- (18000 x 15). In addition, a sum of Rs.10,000/- deserves to be allowed as funeral expenses. Since the parents lost their young son, another sum of Rs.25000/- also deserves to be awarded to them on account of loss of love and affection. F.A.O. No.1121 of 1987 -3- .... In this way, the total compensation works out to Rs.3,05,000/- which is awarded to the appellants. The enhanced compensation shall be paid to the appellants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. The liability to pay the enhanced compensation and interest shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. The impugned award is modified to the above extent and the appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms. November 25,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge