FAO No.6467 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6467 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 05.04.2011 Dahavur Sahni son of Shri Manak Sahni and others ......Appellants Versus Murslin son of Shri Ashraf and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for death of a male aged about 24 years, who was said to be a truck driver. As per the averments in the petition, he used to draw a salary of Rs.3500/- per month and also get Rs.100/- as daily expenses whenever he used to go outside Karnal. With no definite evidence as to how many days he would have been going outside Karnal, the Tribunal took the average income at Rs.4,000/- per month and took the annual income at Rs.48,000/-. It applied the scales of compensation as suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 and adopted a multiplier suitable to the age of the parents. After determining the dependency at Rs.2, 64,000/-, the Tribunal added Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and took the total compensation FAO No.6467 of 2010 (O&M) -2- payable at Rs.2,69,000/-. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the income must have been taken on a higher scale than Rs.4,000/-. I have already observed that the nature of evidence and how the Tribunal had brought about an average income of Rs.4,000/- per month, I do not find any error in the same. The Tribunal has also added Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Learned counsel states that there is no provision made for loss of consortium. The conventional heads of claim are truly conventional and if a case must remain for consideration only for addressing the same, I will not find that to be a ground for interference in appeal for an enhancement unless a substantive ground is available. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 05, 2011 Pankaj*