FAO No.2606 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2606 of 2000 DATE OF DECISION: April 5, 2011 SUKHVIR KAUR AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS ASHOK KUMAR 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? No ---- PRESENT: NONE FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR. TARUNVEER VASHISHT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2. MR. PAUL S. SAINI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a female aged 52 years. She was a Teacher in Government school drawing salary of `7571/- per month. The claimants were the minor son, two unmarried daughters and husband. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal made a deduction of 1/3rd and adopted a multiplier of 4 to determine a compensation of `2,47,400/-. 2. I find that choice of multiplier was low and I would adopt the same scales as provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported as 2009 6 SCC 121 and tabulate the compensation as follows:- FAO No.2606 of 2000 -2- Fatal Accidents Age: 52 Occupation Teacher Claimants 1 minor son, 2 unmarried daughters and husband Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court Sr.No. Amount ` Amount ` 1. Annual Income 7571 2. Add % of increase 30%/50%/Nil 3. Deduction (1/2,1/3, 1/4, 1/5) 1/3 4. Multiplicand 5047 5047 5. Multiplier 4 11 6. Loss of Dependency/Loss of services of wife 6,66,204 7. Medical Expenses 8. Loss of Consortium + loss of love and affection 7500 9. Loss to Estate 5000 10. Funeral Expenses 2500 Total 2,47,400/- 6,81,204/- 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 states that husband is not the dependent and therefore, compensation ought not to have been awarded. The compensation is awarded not merely for loss of dependency, but it is also taken for what could normally happen in a case where a wife not merely contributes materially to the family, but also provides her services as a householder and takes care of the husband and children. At the time of filing of the petition the son was minor and was treated as major later. I do not find under the circumstances any need for deviation from the formula suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case referred to above. 4. The increase in compensation over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition FAO No.2606 of 2000 -3- till the date of payment. The increase in compensation shall be distributed equally amongst all the 4 claimants. 5. The liability shall be in the same manner as provided by the Tribunal. 6. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. 7. There is no representation for the appellants. Registry is directed to despatch the copy of the order to the husband of the deceased who is cited as appellant No.4 at the address mentioned in the petition. April 5, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE